Trump has entered the Querencia Phase of his presidency

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 981 - 1000 of total 3990 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Apr 18, 2018 - 08:38pm PT
Didn't you recently imply you were a lawyer?

Where the heck did you go to school?

Fritz,
If you want to know where I went to school, just ask SomebodyEverybody (or something like that), Supertopo's best cyberstalker.
I'm sure he'll tell you where I went to law school, undergrad, and probably back to preschool I'd imagine (he's good).

Actually I assume your question is basically rhetorical, but I went to good ol' CU for law school.

(And thanks Lorenzo for correcting Fritz's incorrect attempt to correct me on beyond / above; as for "approach," I sincerely apologize for the consternation my typo seems to have caused!)
Fritz

Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
Apr 18, 2018 - 09:19pm PT
blahblah! Thank you for your polite reply:

Fritz,
If you want to know where I went to school, just ask SomebodyEverybody (or something like that), Supertopo's best cyberstalker.
I'm sure he'll tell you where I went to law school, undergrad, and probably back to preschool I'd imagine (he's good).

I am reminded of this story of mine, about Jim Donini being able to identify what University climbers attended.


I find that some well-traveled people, like Donini, are able to tell not only what state people are from, but where they attended college.

Donini was drinking and having fun with some younger members at an AAC meeting.

After a while, he pointed to a climber and said: “You went to school at Stanford, right”?

The climber smiled and said: “Yes, I did, but how do you know”?

Donini said: “I travel a lot, and have met a lot of well-educated climbers, and I have gotten pretty good at guessing where they went to school.

A while later, he pointed to another climber and said: “You went to Dartmouth, right?”

Again, that climber asked Donini how he knew his school.

Donini smiled, and said: “I travel a lot, and have met a lot of well-educated climbers. After that, it is pretty easy for me to guess where they went to school.”

A few drinks later Donini pointed to blahblah and said: “blahblah did you go to school at the University of Colorado?”

blahblah replied: “Maybe, but why do you think I went to C.U.?”

Donini replied: “It was an easy guess. I saw your class ring when you were picking your nose.”





Fritz

Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
Apr 18, 2018 - 09:24pm PT
Credit: Fritz
Bruce Morris

Trad climber
Soulsbyville, California
Apr 18, 2018 - 10:40pm PT
As a matter of fact, Yes!
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Apr 19, 2018 - 12:39am PT
Haha. All three of those guys were adulterers.
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Apr 19, 2018 - 12:47am PT
Am I the only one who noticed that Trump’s lawyer is warning Donny that his fixer might flip?

“Flipping” only happens if there is something to flip.
Tom

Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2018 - 02:52am PT
Floppy Don's fixer might flip.


Say that five times, really fast.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Apr 19, 2018 - 04:08am PT
I'm beginning to get a vague feeling TrumpCo's notion of a "witness protection program" might involve Russian neurotoxins. If it comes down to that then hopefully they're not as sloppy with them as everything else they touch.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Apr 19, 2018 - 06:33am PT
Looks like Hillary got a pass, while no stone is left unturned for The Donald. The source is conservative. But is the piece accurate?

The Politicization of the FBI

Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.

The Case of the Clinton Emails
The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

Comey claims he negotiated the immunity deals because of his concern about time. Yet the investigation was opened in the summer of 2015, nearly a year before he cut these deals. Compare this to the DOJ’s handling of four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, who pleaded guilty in October 2016 to a false statement about leaking classified information to The New York Times. In that case, the DOJ bragged about its use of subpoenas and search warrants.

Not only was there no grand jury, the FBI never issued a search warrant—something it does when there is concern a person will destroy evidence. Clinton deleted half her emails and then claimed, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over to the government all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related. The FBI later found email chains classified as “secret” or “confidential” that she had not turned over. Still no search warrant was issued.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.
After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.
Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.
Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.
Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.
Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed. He justified his actions saying that he no longer trusted Attorney General Lynch after her June 27, 2016, meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. This meeting took place at the height of the so-called investigation—just days before Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton on July 2. Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. We also know that the FBI’s reaction to the impropriety of the tarmac meeting was not disgust, but rather anger at the person who leaked the fact of the meeting. “We need to find that guy” and bring him before a supervisor, stated one (name redacted) FBI agent. Another argued that the source should be banned from working security details. Not one email expressed concern over the meeting. An FBI director who truly had his trust shaken would have questioned the members of Lynch’s FBI security detail for the Arizona trip about how the meeting came to be. Comey didn’t bother.
Comey described Clinton’s handling of classified information as “extremely careless,” a clumsy attempt to avoid the legal language of “gross negligence” for criminal mishandling of classified information—and we later learned that Peter Strzok, again, was responsible for editing this language in Comey’s statement. But practically speaking, the terms are synonymous. Any judge would instruct a jury to consider “gross negligence” as “extremely careless” conduct.

Comey claimed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case against Clinton. I have spent many years investigating federal crimes, and I can tell you that a reasonable prosecutor would have utilized a grand jury, issued subpoenas and search warrants, and followed standard DOJ procedures for federal prosecutions. In short, Comey threw the case. He should have been fired long before he was.

In late spring 2016, just weeks prior to Comey’s July 5 press conference clearing Clinton of any crime, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI agents in New York to shut down their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Their objections were overruled. Sources have told me that McCabe also shut down an additional Clinton investigation. This is the McCabe who, while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, had a wife running for the Virginia State Senate and receiving more than $460,000 in campaign contributions from a longtime Clinton loyalist, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Moreover, it was only after the news of Clinton’s private server became public in The New York Times that McAuliffe recruited McCabe’s wife to run for office. McCabe eventually recused himself from the Clinton probe, but that was one week before the 2016 election, after the decisions to clear Clinton and to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had already been made. So his recusal was meaningless.

In clearing legal impediments from Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination, Comey and his senior staff thought they had helped Clinton clinch the presidency. Their actions put an end to a decades-long tradition of non-political federal law enforcement.

The Case of Trump-Russia Collusion
Rumors of collusion with Russia by Trump or the Trump campaign surfaced during the primaries in 2015, but gained in strength soon after Trump secured the Republican nomination in July 2016. Thanks to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, we now know that high-level FBI officials were involved in promoting these rumors. Among Horowitz’s discoveries were text messages between FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest an illegal plan to utilize law enforcement to frame Trump. The most revealing exchange we know of took place on August 15, 2016. Concerned about the outcome of the election, Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

No amount of sugar coating or post hoc explanation of this and other texts can conceal the couple’s animus against Trump and support for Clinton. Strzok’s messages illustrate his commitment to Clinton’s victory and Trump’s defeat or, if Trump won, to an “insurance policy.”

The term “insurance policy” obviously refers to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which to this day remains a probe with no underlying crime. This is not the talk of professional investigators, but of corrupt agents who have created two standards of justice based on their political leanings. It looks like a reprise of the schemes undertaken during an earlier era, under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, that led to the creation of the Church Committee—a committee on which I served, and which tried to reform the FBI to prevent it from meddling in domestic politics.

At the heart of the Russia collusion scheme is the FBI’s utilization of a document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Called the Steele Dossier because it was written by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele, this document contains unsubstantiated information designed to taint Trump and his presidency. While Clinton partisans point out that candidate Clinton never referred to the Steele Dossier in her speeches, the fact is that she did not have to—the FBI hierarchy was doing it for her! Indeed, FBI General Counsel James Baker was recently reassigned because of his having leaked information about the Steele Dossier to the magazine Mother Jones.

Not one claim concerning Trump in the Steele Dossier has ever been verified by the FBI, according to Andrew McCabe himself in recent testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. The only confirmed fact is unsurprising: former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page traveled to Moscow on his own dime and met with various Russians—all perfectly legal.

Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan laundered the Steele Dossier through the U.S. intelligence community to give it an aura of credibility and get it to the press. It was also used by the FBI and senior DOJ officials to secure wiretap warrants from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Then its contents, via court-authorized FISA warrants, were used to justify the illegal unmasking of the identities of wiretapped Trump officials. The contents of these National Security Agency intercepts were put on spreadsheets and presented to members of President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC)—specifically Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes—and subsequently leaked to the press. According to former NSC staff, President Obama himself read the FISA intercepts of Trump campaign personnel. Unsurprisingly, there was no request for a leak investigation from either the FBI or the DOJ.

In sum, the FBI and DOJ employed unverified salacious allegations contained in a political opposition research document to obtain court-sanctioned wiretaps, and then leaked the contents of the wiretaps and the identities of political opponents. This was a complex criminal plot worthy of Jason Bourne.

The Pall Over the Special Counsel and the FBI
Layered over this debacle is a special counsel investigation unfettered by rules or law. Not surprisingly, James Comey triggered the special counsel’s appointment—and he did so by design. According to Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, having been fired on May 9, 2017, he leaked official documents to his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, with the specific intent that Richman would leak them to the press. Reportage on that leak is what led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller—a former FBI director and Comey’s good friend—as special counsel to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.

Mueller’s reputation has been damaged by a series of decisions that violate the ethical rules of appearances. For instance, he hired Democratic partisans as lawyers for the probe: Andrew Weissmann, who donated to Clinton and praised Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for disobeying Trump’s lawful Presidential Order regarding a travel ban for residents of certain nations that harbor terrorists; Jeannie Rhee, who donated to Clinton and represented Ben Rhodes in the email probe and the Clinton Foundation investigation; and Aaron Zebley, who represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper in the email server probe.

Mueller also staged a pre-dawn raid with weapons drawn on the home of Paul Manafort, rousing Manafort and his wife from their bed—a tactic customarily reserved for terrorists and drug dealers. Manafort has subsequently been indicted for financial crimes that antedate his campaign work for Trump and that have nothing to do with Russia collusion.

Then there’s the fact that when Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation in July 2017, he didn’t tell anyone. The removal and its causes were uncovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Why was such vital information concealed from the public? It is not, as is often claimed now, that Strzok was a minor figure. All the major decisions regarding both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia collusion investigations had been made under Strzok.

Significantly, Strzok also led the interview of General Michael Flynn that ended in Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI. It is important to recall that Flynn’s FBI interview was not conducted under the authority of the special counsel, but under that of Comey and McCabe. It took place during Inauguration week in January 2017. Flynn had met with the same agents the day before regarding security clearances. McCabe called Flynn and asked if agents could come to the White House. Flynn agreed, assuming it was about personnel. It was not.

Flynn had been overheard on a FISA wiretap talking to Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. There was nothing criminal or even unusual about the fact of such discussion. Flynn was on the Trump transition team and was a federal employee as the President-Elect’s national security advisor. It was his job to be talking to foreign leaders. Flynn was not charged with regard to anything said during his conversation with Kislyak. So why was the FBI interrogating Flynn about legal conduct? What more did the FBI need to know? I am told by sources that when Flynn’s indictment was announced, McCabe was on a video conference call—cheering!

Compare the FBI’s treatment of Flynn to its treatment of Paul Combetta, the technician who used a program called BleachBit to destroy thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton’s computer. This destruction of evidence took place after a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issued letters directing that all emails be preserved and subpoenaing them. Combetta first lied to the FBI, claiming he did not recall deleting anything. After being rewarded with immunity, Combetta recalled destroying the emails—but he could not recall anyone directing him to do so.

The word in Washington is that Flynn pleaded guilty to take pressure off his son, who was also a subject of Mueller’s investigation. Always the soldier. But those who questioned Flynn that day did not cover themselves with law enforcement glory. Led by Strzok, they grilled Flynn about facts that they already knew and that they knew did not constitute a crime. They besmirched the reputation of federal law enforcement by their role in a scheme to destroy a duly elected president and his appointees.

A pall hangs over Mueller, and a pall hangs over the DOJ. But the darkest pall hangs over the FBI, America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, which since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover has been steadfast in steering clear of politics. Even during L. Patrick Gray’s brief tenure as acting director during Watergate, it was not the FBI but Gray personally who was implicated. The current scandal pervades the Bureau. It spans from Director Comey to Deputy Director McCabe to General Counsel Baker. It spread to counterintelligence via Peter Strzok. When line agents complained about the misconduct, McCabe retaliated by placing them under investigation for leaking information.

From the outset of this scandal, I have considered Comey a dirty cop. His unfailing commitment to himself above all else is of a pattern. Throughout his career, Comey has continually portrayed himself as Thomas Becket, fighting against institutional corruption—even where none exists. Stories abound of his routine retort to anyone who disagreed with him (not an unusual happening when lawyers gather) during his tenure as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Your moral compass is askew,” he would say. This self-righteousness led agents to refer to him as “The Cardinal.” Comey is no Thomas Becket—he is Henry II.

A great disservice has been done to the dedicated men and women of the FBI by Comey and his seventh floor henchmen. A grand jury probe is long overdue. Inspector General Horowitz is an honest man, but he cannot convene a grand jury. We need one now. We need our FBI back.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-politicization-of-the-fbi/
RURP_Belay

Big Wall climber
Bitter end of a bad anchor
Apr 19, 2018 - 06:38am PT
Floppy Don's fixer might flip.

The real-time consequences of having loyalty to no-one but yourself.

nah000

climber
now/here
Apr 19, 2018 - 07:09am PT
EdwardT wrote: “Looks like Hillary got a pass, while no stone is left unturned for The Donald. The source is conservative. But is the piece accurate?”

“looks like” are the key words. and they are key in this case because despite the premise of the title of this whole thread and a bunch of the “conclusions” as per the “guilt” of donald trump made by some of those on the raving left: the fat lady, at this point, has not sung.

and if you’ve followed this closely mueller himself has said that some of what is being reported by msm re russian collusion is false.

as i’ve said repeatedly, this whole emotional hope that trump will be deposed due to criminal wrongdoing rather than good ole compelling alternative policy and leadership being presented by the democrats, and then democratically elected in, is exactly the same as the right’s focus on BEGHAZI1!1!1!1!! for months and months on end before being ultimately disappointed and then showing up to govern with a plan that amounts to the doubling down on very recently and very failed policies [tax cuts, giant deficits, increased gov’t bloat through increased defence spending, etc].

ie. the parallels between the clinton/benghazi investigation and the trump/russia investigation are far more similar than they are different. in the same way, both cases started with possibly worthy of investigation but at the same time, initially at first, for the most part tenuous and dubious political claims [“hillary’s negligence killed servicemen” vs “trump wouldn’t have won without russian collusion”] but then quickly moved into new and more salacious areas [flawed data management, deleted emails vs stormy davis, corrupt associates] as the investigations progressed..

what we don’t know at this point is where all of this ends on the trump end. maybe he will get caught and convicted of something substantial. until it happens all of the energy the left puts into focusing their energy into assuming that that is a done deal is as wasted as all of the energy that the right put into assuming that crooked hillary was going to get locked up.



there is however, at least one very important difference. while hillary and her ilk may very well have attempted to undermine the “beghazi and its derivative” investigations from behind the scenes, publicly at least, she acted as if she respected the process.

otoh, trump has done everything in his power to publicly denigrate and politicize the fbi’s investigations into him.

and so is there a difference in the investigations? is this most recent version different than the clintonian version?

for sure: no sitting elected official that i can recall ever seeing in my lifetime has so blatantly and completely disrespectfully attempted to preemptively cast shade on what should be an independent investigation.

and if you don’t think folks in the fbi are human and this denigration doesn’t add a bit of fuel to their fire than one makes a massive strategic mistake.



and from that perspective, trump is either the buffoon to end all buffoons... or there is something substantial being hidden.

as always: time will tell what actually happens.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Apr 19, 2018 - 08:48am PT
Looks like Hillary got a pass, while no stone is left unturned for The Donald.

The investigation into Hillarys emails was reopened weeks before the election, likely contributing to or causing her very narrow loss. Any talk of the FBI working for her and against Disgraceful Donald ends right there. No need to read a long biased piece.

And there's the nature of the crimes. Hillary may have tried to keep her communications secret. DD may have colluded with an enemy state to steal the election from the people of the US. Which is more serious ?
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Apr 19, 2018 - 11:26am PT
Who ya gonna call...

Joseph diGenova: The bizarre conspiracy theories peddled by Donald Trump's new lawyer

Trump’s new defense attorney burdened by a controversial past

Trump’s new legal attack dog is a longtime GOP hitman and conspiracy-monger


Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Apr 19, 2018 - 11:29am PT
On The Deficit, GOP Has Been Playing Us All For Suckers

For the past 16 months, House and Senate Republicans and the Trump administration have been operating a huge scam on the federal budget.

FORBES.COM
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Apr 19, 2018 - 12:30pm PT
what we don’t know at this point is where all of this ends on the trump end. maybe he will get caught and convicted of something substantial. until it happens all of the energy the left puts into focusing their energy into assuming that that is a done deal is as wasted as all of the energy that the right put into assuming that crooked hillary was going to get locked up.



there is however, at least one very important difference. while hillary and her ilk may very well have attempted to undermine the “beghazi and its derivative” investigations from behind the scenes, publicly at least, she acted as if she respected the process.

otoh, trump has done everything in his power to publicly denigrate and politicize the fbi’s investigations into him.

and so is there a difference in the investigations? is this most recent version different than the clintonian version?

for sure: no sitting elected official that i can recall ever seeing in my lifetime has so blatantly and completely disrespectfully attempted to preemptively cast shade on what should be an independent investigation.


Has it occurred to you that if the left hadn't made a really, really big deal out of this, Trump might have already gotten rid of Mueller in his own version of Nixon's Saturday night massacre?

Regarding whether Trump personally colluded with Russia isn't at all clear and I'm patiently waiting for the Mueller report to shed light on that.

But impeachment is a political process conducted by congress. The founding fathers could have made it a criminal matter by putting the Supreme Court in charge, but they didn't. You don't have to have a unanimous vote of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach.

I think there are already sufficient grounds for impeachment:

Based on Comey's testimony under oath and Trump's own statements, I think the firing of Comey was a misguided and ineffective attempt to obstruct justice.

Trumps business/financial conflicts of interest would also be grounds for impeachment. With the emolument clause, the founders were clearly worried money. Unfortunately, it never occurred to them that a billionare president might continue to have a billion dollar company continue to operate around the world that is ready made for influence buying. But impeaching Trump for his financial conflicts is within the spirit of the emolument clause. And again, this only requires a political finding, it is not a beyond a reasonable doubt criminal finding.

Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Apr 19, 2018 - 12:49pm PT
The founding fathers could have made it a criminal matter by putting the Supreme Court in charge, but they didn't.

Actually they did.


The impeachment trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Apr 19, 2018 - 12:50pm PT


Regarding whether Trump personally colluded with Russia isn't at all clear and I'm patiently waiting for the Mueller report to shed light on that
. . .

Trumps business/financial conflicts of interest would also be grounds for impeachment. With the emolument clause, the founders were clearly worried money. Unfortunately, it never occurred to them that a billionare president might continue to have a billion dollar company continue to operate around the world that is ready made for influence buying. But impeaching Trump for his financial conflicts is within the spirit of the emolument clause. And again, this only requires a political finding, it is not a beyond a reasonable doubt criminal finding.

Trump personally colluding with Russia is not "at all clear" in the sense that it isn't clear if Bill Clinton personally murdered Vince Foster, or if the moon landings were faked, or if what appears to be reality is all a figment of your imagination. Some people sincerely believe all of the foregoing, and it's not really easy to prove them wrong. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no credible evidence that Trump "personally colluded with Russia," or even incredible evidence really. It's just complete silliness. (Not to say Trump isn't guilty of other stuff, or that Russian didn't meddle in the election, but those are separate issues.)

Regarding the so-called emoluments, you're ass backwards. Many of the early presidents were wealthy landowners with extensive business dealings that undoubtedly involved selling goods to whoever would buy them, including foreign governments. Do you think it was an "emolument" if Washington sold grain to the British Crown?

What the founders likely never considered was that there would arise a class of people who have no personal business experience whatsoever because they are professional politicians, but who would nevertheless amass great fortunes from their "profession." Look at the net worth of the Clintons. Ask where that money came from. And you think the problem with our politicians is that very rarely outsiders who are legitimate business people may have arms-length business dealings with foreigners?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Apr 19, 2018 - 01:06pm PT
"all of the energy that the right put into assuming that hillary was going to get locked up."

The Repub strategy worked. Spray enough constant lies about Benquazi and emails and eventually they convinced enough morons to vote for a crooked con man, a man who is 1000 times as crooked as the Clintons, a shyster whose "nonprofits" are a profit making scam. (Sidenote - where is the repub witchhunt due to the 4 killed soldiers in Niger? answer - based on previous Niger experience with the crooked scooter libby crime gang, it's all Hillary's fault.)

So we have learned, based on Repubs strategy success for the last 30 years, that the key to success is a constant spray of media attacks, propaganda, and fabricated conspiracy myths.
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Apr 19, 2018 - 02:04pm PT
Do you think it was an "emolument" if Washington sold grain to the British Crown?

Red herring.

Never happened.

No king, prince, or foreign power offered Washington a title or emolument but France. They offered a title after he was president. He declined.
George III would have been the last guy to do it. something about rebels and hard feelings, which didn’t end until 1814 after Washington was dead and III was declared insane.

As President, GW declined to be called “ his highness”-

And Disregarding that the crown wasnt involved in grain trade ( they issued licenses-much easier than messy commerce), Shipping’s expensive, which is why Washington was the biggest distiller in the Naton. Booze is a great reducer of bulk.

And he didn’t open his distillery until 1797 after he served, so it didn’t affect his decisions in the Whiskey rebelión.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Apr 19, 2018 - 02:31pm PT
Red herring.

Never happened.

No king, prince, or foreign power offered Washington a title or emolument but France. They offered a title after he was president. He declined.

Not red herring, unless you've studied the business dealings of the early presidents and concluded that none of them ever conducted business with any foreign governments (not just UK--that's actually a red herring). Have you done that?

And to my knowledge, no prince, or foreign power offered Trump a title or "emolument" in the normal sense of the word (if that word really has a normal sense) so that's a bit of a red herring too.

Face it: this notion that a president's legitimate, arm's length business dealings are any sort of an "emolument" is just nonsense.

It is an emolument if foreign governments, e.g., foreign libraries, bought copies of the Clintons' and Obamas' books?

Edit:
And look how ridiculous Comey's "evidence" of Trump collusion is:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/james-comey-jake-tapper-cnntv/index.html

Basically that Trump keeps bringing it up and didn't criticize Putin.
So by that logic, just accuse someone of committing some ridiculous crime in cahoots with a person your target likes. When the target denies the ridiculous crime and doesn't start criticizing the person he likes, I suppose he just might be guilty, according to Comey's logic.

(And of course it's possible whenever you make up a ridiculous accusation about someone, they could actually be guilty of it. Maybe Hillary is in cahoots with a child abuse ring in the basement of a Washington pizzeria, they just got the wrong pizzeria?)
Messages 981 - 1000 of total 3990 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta