EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7791
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:23 Doodsmack wrote: Actually...only willful blindness would lead one to conclude that the Flynn conversation wasn't obstruction. "I need loyalty...please end the Flynn investigation." Source unfortunately, the relevant standards are those of the voters, not reasonable people  his numbers need to tank more before the republicans are willing to dump him; or they'd need something more smoking gun level of proof. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On June 08 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote: Criminal intent to do what? What did Trump do when they left the room that was illegal? he had a secret email server set up duh, did that grab your attention to illicit conduct? | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That's what I'm talking about. Him playing stupid doesn't move the conversation along and it just exacerbates everything we are trying to talk about. What he is arguing is kind of tricky legal ground. Basically there are 2 parts to obstruction of justice, you need an act AND you need intent (a word people have been misusing a lot the past couple pages). Whether his actions are successful or not does NOT matter. The fact that they did not FEEL pressured does not matter. For instance if you grabbed my gun and pointed it at me with the intent to shoot me, even if I dont feel pressured because I dont keep the bullets with the gun your intent is still there (yes I saw Gotham on Monday). Basically the action itself of asking Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn might not on its own be obstruction of justice and could simply be viewed as the president voicing his opinion, however the fact that he cleared the room FIRST means that he KNEW what he was doing was not something he wanted witnesses to and thus he had to make sure it was just a 1 on 1 meeting which can be viewed as intent. Also, the DNI did not want to answer about what Trump attempted to do because that is a fact-based answer. Instead they answered what they FELT because you cant truly challenge what someone feels. Its similar to answering "I don't recall" because you cannot prove that I did recall that. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:28 zlefin wrote: unfortunately, the relevant standards are those of the voters, not reasonable people his numbers need to tank more before the republicans are willing to dump him; or they'd need something more smoking gun level of proof. That is true. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: GOP is already memeing so I guess you guys are right about nothing happening tomorrow  I'm dumbfounded a mainstream party communicates this way about an important matter. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:29 Adreme wrote: What he is arguing is kind of tricky legal ground. Basically there are 2 parts to obstruction of justice, you need an act AND you need intent (a word people have been misusing a lot the past couple pages). Whether his actions are successful or not does NOT matter. The fact that they did not FEEL pressured does not matter. For instance if you grabbed my gun and pointed it at me with the intent to shoot me, even if I dont feel pressured because I dont keep the bullets with the gun your intent is still there (yes I saw Gotham on Monday). Basically the action itself of asking Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn might not on its own be obstruction of justice and could simply be viewed as the president voicing his opinion, however the fact that he cleared the room FIRST means that he KNEW what he was doing was not something he wanted witnesses to and thus he had to make sure it was just a 1 on 1 meeting which can be viewed as intent. Also, the DNI did not want to answer about what Trump attempted to do because that is a fact-based answer. Instead they answered what they FELT because you cant truly challenge what someone feels. Its similar to answering "I don't recall" because you cannot prove that I did recall that. I understand what you are saying. I know what he was attempting. But it still begs an answer to doodsmack that you have to be willfully blind to what the INTENT and ACT was. It's clear, to me at least, that trump tried to influence the investigation and did so behind close doors with the director of the FBI. How you spin that is on you, but the facts are there. Unless we get tapes or that dossier, we'll never know for certain. The DNI can play their games because they want to keep their jobs, but they're doing more harm than good at this point, imo. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:33 nojok wrote: I'm dumbfounded a mainstream party communicates this way about an important matter. A party's goal is to get votes. If the age of the internet has ruined us to the point that memery is the way to go, it is our own fault. If average humans were higher quality, this wouldn't happen. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You know the answer to this question. So why ask it? No, I don't know the answer, which is why I'm of the opinion that the narrative doesn't show obstruction of justice. That's why I am asking. What did Trump do that constitutes obstruction of justice after he asked everyone to leave the room? What specific act? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:33 nojok wrote: I'm dumbfounded a mainstream party communicates this way about an important matter. I am really surprised that they - along with the majority of the country - prefer to make a mockery of the dealings of our government. It's treated like a sporting event by a lot of folks, they don't care how awful Trump is, they're only happy he beat Hillary. And that he upsets people. The number of times I've seen people say "well liberals are getting pissed off, so we must be doing something right" is about the most depressing thing I've seen. Because domestic and foreign policy is all just a game. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That's what I'm talking about. Him playing stupid doesn't move the conversation along and it just exacerbates everything we are trying to talk about. I'm not playing stupid at all. You guys are just ignoring the legal nuance that I have been repeatedly explaining. In other words, you're the ones who are playing dumb. And it should be obvious given that none of the Democrat leadership is jumping up and down on getting impeachment proceedings rolling. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote: That is a false framing. The question isn't just 'what happened in the room'. It is what happened after his efforts to get Comey to lay off Flynn failed. Once Comey wouldn't lay off, then Trump fired him to ease the pressure over Russia. Proof of the Comey-Trump conversations are coming out through Comey. More proof will come to back up the Trump-Russian Official conversation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html Yes, this is the correct way to frame it if you're gunning for Trump. It's all about the termination. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote: Yes, this is the correct way to frame it if you're gunning for Trump. It's all about the termination. Trump is the dumbass who told the Russians: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” That is his ass, not mine. He is President now and is accountable to both the law and all of us in a way he wasn't as a private citizen. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
You must remember that not everyone who is against trump is democratic. You must also realize that the majority of us are not holding public office or running for election at some point in the near future, therefore we need to secure votes for ourselves. Play politics with politicians. Talk real shop with real people. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 05:53 Wulfey_LA wrote: Trump is the dumbass who told the Russians: That is his ass, not mine. He is President now and is accountable to both the law and all of us in a way he wasn't as a private citizen. Yes, that's a problematic statement if that's actually what Trump said. However, I wouldn't rely upon it without seeing more. It's a very good example of why hearsay generally isn't admissible in courts, and there are 5 layers of hearsay (and authentication) that have to be accounted for: Trump => recording, recording => paper, paper => official, official => NYT, NYT => public. There are countless questions to be asked regarding the authenticity and completeness of what the NYT published. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
Let's say that proof for (lean on Comey --> Comey refuses --> fire Comey --> brag about FBI pressure taken off) comes out. What will you say then? | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On June 08 2017 06:04 xDaunt wrote: Yes, that's a problematic statement if that's actually what Trump said. However, I wouldn't rely upon it without seeing more. It's a very good example of why hearsay generally isn't admissible in courts, and there are 5 layers of hearsay (and authentication) that have to be accounted for Trump => recording, recording => paper, paper => official, official => NYT, NYT => public. There are countless questions to be asked regarding the authenticity and completeness of what the NYT published. While you have been repeatedly giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, every single time there has been a leak, it has always been proven to be accurate. For instance, even the Comey memo leaks are confirmed almost verbatim in today's prepared statement, and frankly its tiresome to keep giving Trump the benefit of the doubt given his track record. I'm certain that NYT (hate it as you may for having a liberal slant) holds a far higher journalistic standard than most right wing outlets, and probably actually saw a copy of the transcript in question and confirmed its veracity before even releasing the news. | ||
| ||
