EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7795
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day. + Show Spoiler + https://twitter.com/ten_gop/status/872535692265615362 Jesus Danglars I'm surprised you don't know TEN_GOP is basically a a fake The_Donald meme account. They're the definition of "fake news." I just checked CNN and wouldn't you know... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UyyQosw.jpg) Please never take that twitter account seriously. I beg you. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 08 2017 12:55 crms wrote: Jesus Danglars I'm surprised you don't know TEN_GOP is basically a a fake The_Donald meme account. They're the definition of "fake news." I just checked CNN and wouldn't you know... + Show Spoiler + Please never take that twitter account seriously. I beg you. Well he's one of the people who seems to think Comey's objective testimony is going to somehow help Trump. I don't know what universe you have to live in... | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On June 08 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote: Everyone denies being pressured, feeling pressured, by Trump or anyone else, and the story is obstruction. The story might be thoughtcrime if you follow the hopes and dreams of some posters in this forum. Its just a better hope than collusion at this point, so everybody's on board. They're also going to get hit hard on this partisan leak campaign if nothing criminal turns up. You mishandled classified information to hurt the other team, not to save the republic. A good amount ofpeople have already clued in to it; Trump's bad, classified leaks are bad, nobody comes out clean. No one has denied BEING pressured. That is a lie. A blatant lie to considering you watched the testimony they denied FEELING pressured. They outright refused to answer whether he pressured them only saying they did not feel pressured which is a statement which CANT be proven false which is why they made it. I can not mince words though, what you posted is a lie. They outright avoided saying that and if you were to infer anything from their silence it would be the opposite of what you said. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35152 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:06 NewSunshine wrote: Well he's one of the people who seems to think Comey's objective testimony is going to somehow help Trump. I don't know what universe you have to live in... The one where a president would think about stopping testimony that helps him, clearly. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 12:55 crms wrote: Jesus Danglars I'm surprised you don't know TEN_GOP is basically a a fake The_Donald meme account. They're the definition of "fake news." I just checked CNN and wouldn't you know... Please never take that twitter account seriously. I beg you. Thank you for your MS paint efforts to correct the record. I appreciate the pink arrows as a change of pace. For those looking for some details of the exact prongs of obstruction of justice, this thread is not bad. It is like 22 tweets, so I won't post them all. But it is an attorney going down exactly what obstruction of justice, how it differs from other crimes, and the current fact set fits into the law. It isn't bad for a crash course 140 characters at time. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:06 Adreme wrote: No one has denied BEING pressured. That is a lie. A blatant lie to considering you watched the testimony they denied FEELING pressured. They outright refused to answer whether he pressured them only saying they did not feel pressured which is a statement which CANT be proven false which is why they made it. I can not mince words though, what you posted is a lie. They outright avoided saying that and if you were to infer anything from their silence it would be the opposite of what you said. Considering that the burden is to show that Trump did exert unlawful pressure, testimony from people that they did not feel pressured is just as good as testimony that they weren't pressured. Saying Danglars lied is outright retarded in this context. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 08 2017 12:48 LegalLord wrote: CNN has honestly taken a nosedive in quality over the past few years. I used to like it as a level headed source of news but these days they publish mostly garbage. I think their reputation just hasn't quite caught up to the reality of where their reporting quality stands as of now. i think that's part of the general downward trend of media b/c of the increased competition for eyeballs. lowest common denominator and all that, the only news worth airing is breaking news, so "breaking news" and hot takes all day | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:17 ticklishmusic wrote: i think that's part of the general downward trend of media b/c of the increased competition for eyeballs. lowest common denominator and all that, the only news worth airing is breaking news, so "breaking news" and hot takes all day Not untrue, but CNN took a particularly harsh dive in quality. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:12 Plansix wrote: Thank you for your MS paint efforts to correct the record. I appreciate the pink arrows as a change of pace. https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 For those looking for some details of the exact prongs of obstruction of justice, this thread is not bad. It is like 22 tweets, so I won't post them all. But it is an attorney going down exactly what obstruction of justice, how it differs from other crimes, and the current fact set fits into the law. It isn't bad for a crash course 140 characters at time. Abramson is full of shit when he says that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice because he attempted to persuade Comey to drop the charges. He's intentionally leaving out a very critical word in the statute that is a necessary element of establishing the crime: "corruptly." The statute requires that the method of persuasion be "corrupt:" (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to.... 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b)(2) Don't read rely on what this hack says. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote: Considering that the burden is to show that Trump did exert unlawful pressure, testimony from people that they did not feel pressured is just as good as testimony that they weren't pressured. Saying Danglars lied is outright retarded in this context. It feels like we're looking at a different set of facts. From where I'm sitting it looks like Comey will confirm that Trump asked him to find a way to let Flynn go, and that Comey did feel pressured. Comey also felt this was inappropriate enough that he specifically didn't tell the investigators about this request from the president in order to prevent it from hindering the investigation. We also get Coats and Rogers appearing to deny that they were pressured, but the allegation wasn't so much that they were pressured as that they were asked to help Trump convince Comey to back off of Flynn, which they never did confirm or deny. So it's a bit like McMasters insisting "Trump never divulged our intelligence sources to Russia." Nobody said that he did, and yet it sounds like a denial of the story without actually contradicting the story. The case for obstruction still seems like it would be a pretty straightforward line: Trump pressures Comey to back off Flynn -> Comey refuses -> Trump fires Comey for not backing off. The first two parts are already pretty much universally agreed upon, so the third one is the only part that's up in the air. But we probably shouldn't have expected Comey's testimony to settle that, since obviously Comey can't speak to Trump's reasons for firing him. It certainly seems like there's enough here to continue having hearings and investigations popping up in the news for a good while, which won't help Trump in any case. Edit: On June 08 2017 13:29 xDaunt wrote: Abramson is full of shit when he says that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice because he attempted to persuade Comey to drop the charges. He's intentionally leaving out a very critical word in the statute that is a necessary element of establishing the crime: "corruptly." The statute requires that the method of persuasion be "corrupt:" 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b)(2) Don't read rely on what this hack says. Is there a decent legal definition of "corrupt" for us to work from? Because given that Trump has a lot of personal ties to Flynn and might fear his own business being unearthed, it certainly seems like there's a decent case for that description applying. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote: Considering that the burden is to show that Trump did exert unlawful pressure, testimony from people that they did not feel pressured is just as good as testimony that they weren't pressured. Saying Danglars lied is outright retarded in this context. Except it is a lie. If a person threatens me with a gun to my head, I could testify under oath that I did not FEEL threatened and there is no way to prove I am committing perjury. How I feel DOES NOT MATTER in the context of the criminality of what they did, the attempt to do so and the intent behind it are what make it a crime and the same is true in this context. He added words that were not said in order to make it seem like they said something that when asked point blank they refused to say. So yes, Danglers lied and yes I am going to call him on it. Random note, I just turned on CNN and the countdown is not there which likely means its a show by show choice on whether or not to display it. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:30 ChristianS wrote: Is there a decent legal definition of "corrupt" for us to work from? Because given that Trump has a lot of personal ties to Flynn and might fear his own business being unearthed, it certainly seems like there's a decent case for that description applying. I hope so, but if not, the fact that Trump said what he did, and was aware of what he was saying and to what end it was said, it can be argued as corrupt in and of itself, regardless of his outside ties. His campaign was under investigation, and he knowingly asked Comey to pull back from the investigation(a means to a patently corrupt end already: benefiting himself unjustly). Intent doesn't matter when it comes to OoJ, so if the persuasion has to be "corrupt" then I would think that's defined by simply being aware of what you're doing and why. I would welcome clarification if there's a specific definition in legalese I'm not aware of though. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:29 xDaunt wrote: Abramson is full of shit when he says that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice because he attempted to persuade Comey to drop the charges. He's intentionally leaving out a very critical word in the statute that is a necessary element of establishing the crime: "corruptly." The statute requires that the method of persuasion be "corrupt:" 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b)(2) Don't read rely on what this hack says. I agree he makes it seem like a slam dunk case, which I don't believe. But that says "or". I have to assume that if intimidation or threatens can be proven, corruptly persuades is not required? Because I don't think what we have at hand points to corruption, but toward intimidation. As pointed out above, Trump said he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. The threats were for Comey to lose his job if he didn't drop the investigation. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Former White house chief ethics lawyer under George W. https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/872639851027464193 See, y'all should just listen to me (as much as it hurts). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:30 ChristianS wrote: Is there a decent legal definition of "corrupt" for us to work from? Because given that Trump has a lot of personal ties to Flynn and might fear his own business being unearthed, it certainly seems like there's a decent case for that description applying. I'd have to go look up the case law to be sure, but "corrupt persuasion" almost certainly refers to quid pro quo deals, such as "I will give you X if you drop the investigation." | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 08 2017 13:49 xDaunt wrote: See, y'all should just listen to me (as much as it hurts). He admitted in another conversation that he basically did it because of Russia though. That was the kicker for me personally. Granted, that's a hearsay conversation so far, but I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of that one just as we will with Comey. | ||
| ||
