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.
On January 26 2018 11:42 Introvert wrote: Trump won't be impeached because you can't convince the American public to impeach a president for not firing someone investigating a conspiracy that didn't happen.
Even if he wanted to fire someone he had the authority to fire.
Trying to fire the special counsel is obstruction of justice. And 40% of the country didn’t think Nixon should be impeached. Still happened.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
On January 26 2018 11:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Alright TL Lawyers... Does this mean it is possible McGhan could be subpoenaed by Mueller as part of the investigation?
He's already talked to Mueller, apparently that's one way this story got out. Did you read it?
On January 26 2018 11:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Alright TL Lawyers... Does this mean it is possible McGhan could be subpoenaed by Mueller as part of the investigation?
He's already talked to Mueller, apparently that's one way this story got out. Did you read it?
There's a difference between talking and getting a summons.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe.
Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here.
Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger.
This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
He doesn’t need to succeed to obstruct justice, just try. Trying to fire Mueller is enough. Trying to influence the Flynn investigation is enough. You are simply wrong on this subject.
On January 26 2018 11:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Alright TL Lawyers... Does this mean it is possible McGhan could be subpoenaed by Mueller as part of the investigation?
He's already talked to Mueller, apparently that's one way this story got out. Did you read it?
There's a difference between talking and getting a summons.
So? What is he going to learn that is new?
The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
Perhaps this is a dumb thing to argue over but at the same time I don't get the initial comment.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
He doesn’t need to succeed to obstruct justice, just try. Trying to fire Mueller is enough. Trying to influence the Flynn investigation is enough. You are simply wrong on this subject.
It's hotly debated if Trump has the authority to fire Mueller, and McGahn seems to think so. but I am "simply wrong." I am only talking about impeachment here. You let me know when you can get political support from more than the lefty-fringe who would have impeached anyways for not firing someone investigating something that didn't happen.
Also, collusion is not a crime. Receiving material assistance from a foreign government to win an election is a crime. Soliciting that assistance is conspiracy to commit that crime.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
He doesn’t need to succeed to obstruct justice, just try. Trying to fire Mueller is enough. Trying to influence the Flynn investigation is enough. You are simply wrong on this subject.
It's hotly debated if Trump has the authority to fire Mueller, and McGahn seems to think so. but I am "simply wrong." I am only talking about impeachment here. You let me know when you can get political support from more than the lefty-fringe who would have impeached anyways for not firing someone investigating something that didn't happen.
If he tried to fire Mueller because he didn’t like the investigation or get the Flynn charges dropped, that is a crime. The president doesn’t have the power to end criminal investigations he doesn’t like. You do not understand the law you are talking about. If he is authorized to fire Mueller does not matter in an obstruction charge.
Impeachment is a long ways off, but it will become a political reality if this is true. The US people didn’t like it when Nixon thought he was above the law and they won’t like it here.
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
He doesn’t need to succeed to obstruct justice, just try. Trying to fire Mueller is enough. Trying to influence the Flynn investigation is enough. You are simply wrong on this subject.
It's hotly debated if Trump has the authority to fire Mueller, and McGahn seems to think so. but I am "simply wrong." I am only talking about impeachment here. You let me know when you can get political support from more than the lefty-fringe who would have impeached anyways for not firing someone investigating something that didn't happen.
If he tried to fire Mueller because he didn’t like the investigation or get the Flynn charges dropped, that is a crime. The president doesn’t have the power to end criminal investigations he doesn’t like.
Impeachment is a long ways off, but it will become a political reality if this is true. The US people didn’t like it when Nixon thought he was above the law and they won’t like it here.
IIRC the first is false and the latter is debatable. Though both may be "impeachable offenses."
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans.
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
He doesn’t need to succeed to obstruct justice, just try. Trying to fire Mueller is enough. Trying to influence the Flynn investigation is enough. You are simply wrong on this subject.
It's hotly debated if Trump has the authority to fire Mueller, and McGahn seems to think so. but I am "simply wrong." I am only talking about impeachment here. You let me know when you can get political support from more than the lefty-fringe who would have impeached anyways for not firing someone investigating something that didn't happen.
If he tried to fire Mueller because he didn’t like the investigation or get the Flynn charges dropped, that is a crime. The president doesn’t have the power to end criminal investigations he doesn’t like.
Impeachment is a long ways off, but it will become a political reality if this is true. The US people didn’t like it when Nixon thought he was above the law and they won’t like it here.
IIRC the first is false and the latter is debatable. Though both may be "impeachable offenses."
You are incorrect. Success is not required for obstruction. They only need to prove that his intent was to impede an investigation. Firing Comey and saying it was to end the Russia probe is proof he wanted to impede the investigation and a strong case for obstruction. Trying to fire Mueller is the same. They just need to prove his intent was to end the Russia probe, which is pretty clear at this point.
His ability to fire Mueller doesn’t matter. Why he tried to do it is what matters.
If the white house lawyer mentioned is special council they don't have lawyer client confidentiality and can be compelled to recall the conversation and threat to resign if asked by muller. That in it of itself would be halfway to finding him guilty of it.
On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote: [quote] Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns.
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around.
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019.
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
because you can't convince the American public
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay.
He doesn’t need to succeed to obstruct justice, just try. Trying to fire Mueller is enough. Trying to influence the Flynn investigation is enough. You are simply wrong on this subject.
It's hotly debated if Trump has the authority to fire Mueller, and McGahn seems to think so. but I am "simply wrong." I am only talking about impeachment here. You let me know when you can get political support from more than the lefty-fringe who would have impeached anyways for not firing someone investigating something that didn't happen.
If he tried to fire Mueller because he didn’t like the investigation or get the Flynn charges dropped, that is a crime. The president doesn’t have the power to end criminal investigations he doesn’t like.
Impeachment is a long ways off, but it will become a political reality if this is true. The US people didn’t like it when Nixon thought he was above the law and they won’t like it here.
IIRC the first is false and the latter is debatable. Though both may be "impeachable offenses."
You are incorrect. Success is not required for obstruction. They only need to prove that his intent was to impede an investigation. Firing Comey and saying it was to end the Russia probe is proof he wanted to impede and investigation. Trying to fire Mueller is the same. They just need to prove his intent was to end the Russia probe, which is pretty clear at this point.
His ability to fire Mueller doesn’t matter. Why he tried to do it is what matters.
You could do more googling but it is certainly not decided that you could get at Trump through the criminal justice system. Impeachment seems the most sure fire way, which I think isn't happening unless collusion happened.
I never said that Trump would be charged while in office. If Mueller believes the an obstruction charge should be brought, he would refer it to the House of Representatives and they would go through the impeachment process. The senate would then decide if it meet the criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors.
But that shit isn’t happening until 2019, because House Republicans are a joke.
Edit: and again, collusion isn’t a crime. Trump Jr asking for dirt on Clinton from a known rep for the Russian government. That one is dangerous close to a crime.
Again, elected officials are not allowed to fire investigators for investigating things the elected official doesn't want investigated. It doesn't matter if they are allowed to do it, governors and the President can't just fire an investigator in an effort to end an investigation. People should not be using the Fox News approved "Well it is his right as President" argument.
On January 26 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote: People definitely reported hearing explosions as well
Source this.
Keep in mind the sheer chaos of the event and the general unreliability of eye witness testimony that there were or weren't explosions when and how many and why it's already protocol not to rely on eye witness testimony alone and run tests that weren't run for no determinable reason.
Wow, your response to me pointing out your CIA drug conspiracy theories is full-blown 9/11 truthing.
EPT
