President Donald Trump: The Thread

[pettie4sox]

That would make one of his troll posts worth it for the day.

 

:lol:

[pettie4sox]

As an independent. I don’t see trump as perfect. But my problem is that most people who complain about Trump were pro Hillary. Naturally. However she was a bad candidate whether you wear red glasses , blue glasses or independent glasses. Most Bernie bros I have spoken with were more anti Hillary than trump. I could only take a Hillary voters opinion on trump with a tiny grain of salt. I do enjoy conversations with Bernie fans though. I could also respect those who are in the “they both suck” group.

 

On a serious note, I do believe a lot of Berners either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or held their nose and voted for HRC. I can't really picture any of them crossing partisan lines and voting for Trump.

 

Hell, a lot of people on the forum were trash talking HRC before the election. She's not that liked.

[Balta1701]

Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"

 

 

reminds me very much of:

If Donald Trump were to go down as President, I would want it to be because of something other than obstructing this investigation.

[StrangeSox]

Any particular reason why? Holding the President accountable for distorting the justice system seems particularly worthy.

[pettie4sox]

Lol how would you want him to go down?

[Dick Allen]

Lol how would you want him to go down?

For me, it would be the pee tape on youtube.

[bmags]

If Donald Trump were to go down as President, I would want it to be because of something other than obstructing this investigation.

 

In isolation, this would probably warrant a censure.

[Balta1701]

Any particular reason why? Holding the President accountable for distorting the justice system seems particularly worthy.

I think it's constitutionally questionable enough of a case - the president has the authority to fire the FBI director for so many reasons that "asking him to shut down an investigation" isn't a strong enough event to reach High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He has the authority to fire people who serve at his pleasure, and unless we rewrite the laws, the law isn't clear on this. If Congress wanted to protect the FBI director, they could have made it a crime to fire the FBI director, and they haven't done so. It's the same standard I would have held Clinton to regarding obstruction - it's seriously questionable that the President has to answer those questions when serving as the President, the Supreme Court has never settled much of this, and that firing I'm not sure reaches the level to me.

 

Prove to me that he conspired with a foreign power to commit a crime on US Soil in order to win his election. That's a fundamental crime against the American system.

[StrangeSox]

Fair enough, and there's serious concern over whether you can even charge a sitting President with a federal crime.

 

Impeachment is ultimately a political tool and not a legal one, though, and it is entirely up to Congress to decide what that standard is.

[G&T]

I think it's constitutionally questionable enough of a case - the president has the authority to fire the FBI director for so many reasons that "asking him to shut down an investigation" isn't a strong enough event to reach High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He has the authority to fire people who serve at his pleasure, and unless we rewrite the laws, the law isn't clear on this. If Congress wanted to protect the FBI director, they could have made it a crime to fire the FBI director, and they haven't done so. It's the same standard I would have held Clinton to regarding obstruction - it's seriously questionable that the President has to answer those questions when serving as the President, the Supreme Court has never settled much of this, and that firing I'm not sure reaches the level to me.

 

Prove to me that he conspired with a foreign power to commit a crime on US Soil in order to win his election. That's a fundamental crime against the American system.

 

A politician using his authority to stop an investigation to protect his friends and family is also against the American system.

[StrangeSox]

Speaking of, breaking news from CNN:

 

WH laywer McGhan told Trump in January that Flynn had lied to the FBI. Trump waited at least two more weeks until WaPo broke the story to fire Flynn, and it means Trump knew Flynn had lied when Trump met with Comey and told Comey to back off.

 

The White House's original story was the Flynn was fired for lying to VP Pence, but it was never really explained why they waited until the story became public to do anything if lying to Pence was some unacceptable action.

Edited December 4, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

A politician using his authority to stop an investigation to protect his friends and family is also against the American system.

I think the simple version of it is...if the President is obstructing justice, tell me what he did that he is obstructing.

 

In the Clinton 98 case, he did not commit an underlying crime. He lied to cover up a relationship that, while inappropriate, was still 2 consenting, legal adults. Follow that standard - tell me what the underlying crime is that the President himself did.

 

If he just wanted to protect Flynn because they're both white supremacists and if you want to beat up enough muslims you need good people to do it...that's not an impeachable offense to my eyes. If he wanted to protect Flynn because Flynn was one of his co-conspirators in a crime that he had knowledge of during its commission and then used to great effect in the campaign...that's a fundamentally different setup because he's also a conspirator.

[Kyyle23]

I think the simple version of it is...if the President is obstructing justice, tell me what he did that he is obstructing.

 

In the Clinton 98 case, he did not commit an underlying crime. He lied to cover up a relationship that, while inappropriate, was still 2 consenting, legal adults. Follow that standard - tell me what the underlying crime is that the President himself did.

 

If he just wanted to protect Flynn because they're both white supremacists and if you want to beat up enough muslims you need good people to do it...that's not an impeachable offense to my eyes. If he wanted to protect Flynn because Flynn was one of his co-conspirators in a crime that he had knowledge of during its commission and then used to great effect in the campaign...that's a fundamentally different setup because he's also a conspirator.

 

I’m pretty sure if they charge him with obstructing Justice, they will tell you what he is obstructing. And they aren’t going to tell you right now, but all signs are pointing to money laundering and conspiracy, with money laundering being the main focus

[Quin]

I really enjoy that Trump's lawyer is using Nixon's defense

[pettie4sox]

I really enjoy that Trump's lawyer is using Nixon's defense

 

Yep, now we can hope for the same result.

[ptatc]

As an independent. I don’t see trump as perfect. But my problem is that most people who complain about Trump were pro Hillary. Naturally. However she was a bad candidate whether you wear red glasses , blue glasses or independent glasses. Most Bernie bros I have spoken with were more anti Hillary than trump. I could only take a Hillary voters opinion on trump with a tiny grain of salt. I do enjoy conversations with Bernie fans though. I could also respect those who are in the “they both suck” group.

Ooo, Ooo (said in my best Arnold Horschack impersonation)

[ptatc]

On a serious note, I do believe a lot of Berners either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or held their nose and voted for HRC. I can't really picture any of them crossing partisan lines and voting for Trump.

 

Hell, a lot of people on the forum were trash talking HRC before the election. She's not that liked.

Obviously, she lost to Trump. That was really hard to do.

[StrangeSox]

I think the simple version of it is...if the President is obstructing justice, tell me what he did that he is obstructing.

 

In the Clinton 98 case, he did not commit an underlying crime. He lied to cover up a relationship that, while inappropriate, was still 2 consenting, legal adults. Follow that standard - tell me what the underlying crime is that the President himself did.

 

If he just wanted to protect Flynn because they're both white supremacists and if you want to beat up enough muslims you need good people to do it...that's not an impeachable offense to my eyes. If he wanted to protect Flynn because Flynn was one of his co-conspirators in a crime that he had knowledge of during its commission and then used to great effect in the campaign...that's a fundamentally different setup because he's also a conspirator.

 

If anything directly against Trump comes out, I'm going to assume it's obstruction charges that will be spelled out or it'll be something not directly related to his campaign like all sorts of illegal financial and real estate dealings over the years.

[ptatc]

Any particular reason why? Holding the President accountable for distorting the justice system seems particularly worthy.

Isn't this basically why Clinton was impeached.

[StrangeSox]

Clinton perjured himself during a sham investigation whereas Trump is attempting to direct the DoJ to go after his political opponents and to let his political allies go. Maybe Clinton should have faced censure or something for his perjury, but I think his offense was not on the same level as what Trump has been attempting to do.

 

I don't think Trump will actually face impeachment unless substantial proof comes out prior to the 2018 elections and Democrats take back both chambers of Congress. And even then, he wouldn't be convicted unless Democrats somehow attained a super majority which is basically impossible in 2018 unless every Republican just forgets to vote or something.

[Balta1701]

Isn't this basically why Clinton was impeached.

Correct, and I don't think that rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

 

We do not want this to become a Starr investigation, where it's all about people's interpretations of testimony to a prosecutor clearly out to get the guy and no underlying crime.

[ptatc]

Correct, and I don't think that rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

 

We do not want this to become a Starr investigation, where it's all about people's interpretations of testimony to a prosecutor clearly out to get the guy and no underlying crime.

Wasn't the charge obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI? They are pretty much the same charge.

[G&T]

I think the simple version of it is...if the President is obstructing justice, tell me what he did that he is obstructing.

 

In the Clinton 98 case, he did not commit an underlying crime. He lied to cover up a relationship that, while inappropriate, was still 2 consenting, legal adults. Follow that standard - tell me what the underlying crime is that the President himself did.

 

If he just wanted to protect Flynn because they're both white supremacists and if you want to beat up enough muslims you need good people to do it...that's not an impeachable offense to my eyes. If he wanted to protect Flynn because Flynn was one of his co-conspirators in a crime that he had knowledge of during its commission and then used to great effect in the campaign...that's a fundamentally different setup because he's also a conspirator.

 

In this case, Flynn had already lied to the FBI, which is itself a crime, and Trump then told Comey to drop the investigation (when Trump apparently knew about the crime). Is that not enough?

 

Anyway, this is crazy. According to you, the president can fire the head of the FBI, or commit any other act of obstruction in order to prevent the investigation of crimes commitment by anyone except himself. This is what autocrats do, and you have no problem with it.

 

And what if there is highly classified evidence that would show collusion but it isn't admissible in court, or the intelligence community doesn't want to reveal its sources? Trump should be allowed to remain as president because the provable offense isn't enough?

[Balta1701]

In this case, Flynn had already lied to the FBI, which is itself a crime, and Trump then told Comey to drop the investigation (when Trump apparently knew about the crime). Is that not enough?

 

Anyway, this is crazy. According to you, the president can fire the head of the FBI, or commit any other act of obstruction in order to prevent the investigation of crimes commitment by anyone except himself. This is what autocrats do, and you have no problem with it.

 

And what if there is highly classified evidence that would show collusion but it isn't admissible in court, or the intelligence community doesn't want to reveal its sources? Trump should be allowed to remain as president because the provable offense isn't enough?

To me...for the standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", yes, that is not enough.

 

If we don't want the President to be able to do that...then Congress has to write that law.

 

If it isn't admissible, then no he should remain president. Because if you're wiretapping a foreign power you should have gotten a FISA warrant. That's how Flynn was caught, you talk to a foreign operative and the government should have regular FISA warrants permitting that collection. The government has to follow the rules in order to bring charges.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think you need a FISA warrant to wiretap foreign communications e.g. Kislyak calling home to Russia is going to have the NSA listening in with or without a warrant. They were likely already listening in on Kislyak because he's assumed to be a spy, and they picked up Flynn talking to him. Once your surveillance of foreign nationals picks up a US citizen, the legal hurdles start, but as far as I understand it they can listen in on foreign nationals making overseas calls to other foreign nationals all day long if they want.

 

I also agree more with G&T that obstruction of justice, at least to the level the Trump appears to be engaging in it, should qualify as an impeachable offense. What if he starts publicly directing the DOJ to investigate and file charges against Democratic candidates in the run up to 2018, or his challenger in 2020?

 

The Constitution doesn't define "high crimes and misdemeanors," which leaves it up to the Congress to settle as a political question as far as what qualifies. If they wanted a "convicted of a crime" standard, they could have written that.

Edited December 4, 2017 by StrangeSox