EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1363
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8744 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On April 19 2019 05:08 Doodsmack wrote: The report says they assumed a legal framework in which they couldn't recommend a prosecution of the president because a sitting president cant be indicted. Therefore they set out all the evidence each way, for the purpose of Congress being able to consider it. That is the point of the obstruction part of the report. Though it looks like democratic leadership has decided not to pursue impeachment in the house. It seems unclear now whether the house will pursue impeachment. Pelosi is going to hold a meeting on Monday. She said "the house will not remain silent" and it is a "grave matter." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I also think there needs to be more time with the report. One of the themes of the report is Trump and his people’s ever present willingness to lie and do nearly illegal things. Something that we knew, but that was never laid out all in one document. I can see that aspect of the report starting to color the discussion more and impact his support in the senate. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8074 Posts
Impeachment was never gonna happen I think, and now less than ever. The idea that the Mueller report is a failure if Trump finishes his term is a weird one. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9206 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:27 Biff The Understudy wrote: i also think that what is at stake is to damage Trump politically as much as possible and maybe get more of his subordinates in the crosshair of the FBI. Impeachment was never gonna happen I think, and now less than ever. The idea that the Mueller report is a failure if Trump finishes his term is a weird one. There's also that impeachment without a hell of a smoking gun would make him a martyr. That would be the worst case scenario for his opponents. | ||
|
wulfdog
2 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:23 JimmiC wrote: I think they will try to keep the most embarrassing part of the report in the news cycle for as long as possible, but not actually push for impeachment. I doubt impeachment would happen given the time period, but show that the reason for that is that Trump tried to obstruct and failed. That is more embarrassing (less illegal) than obstructing and might actually make a dent in his base, since they see him as a strong man and this shows he is actually weak and scared. The Benghazi proceedings got Trump elected. And deep dive investigation into every lie and abuse Trump did to impede the Mueller investigation should similarly get Trump tossed. EDIT: On April 20 2019 02:34 Dan HH wrote: There's also that impeachment without a hell of a smoking gun would make him a martyr. That would be the worst case scenario for his opponents. Did they ever find a smoking gun in the Benghazi hearings? 11 different reports turned up nothing. Were they effective in preventing HRC from becoming President? Yes. Democrats must have at least as many hearings as the Republicans had on Benghazi now that we have the Mueller report in hand that found evidence of obstruction of justice (just not enough to overcome DOJ policy and precedent against prosecutors charging sitting Presidents with crimes). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22308 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:31 Plansix wrote: Fortunately obstruction of justice doesn't require you to be successful, it merely requires you to act. Which he did when he gave those orders.As people are pointing on NPR and other outlets, the only reason Trump didn’t obstruct justice was because people in the White House refused to carry out his requests. Primarily out of concern they would be charged with obstruction of justice if they did. That is a challenging narrative to get around, especially when one of those people was White House counsel. Trump ordered them to, as they saw it, commit crimes. The people themselves are in the clear because they refused, but Trump is most certainly not. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:38 JimmiC wrote: I believe this to be not disputable. And whether or not you think that act is illegal you would hope that everyone would think a person ordering others to commit crimes on their behalf is not fitting for a president. We'd hope, but the war crimes presidents commit/support have pretty bipartisan support so I doubt this political stuff moves the needle much if at all. | ||
|
wulfdog
2 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote: We'd hope, but the war crimes presidents commit have pretty bipartisan support so I doubt this political stuff moves the needle much if at all. Unless you are talking about the War Crimes in Yemen. An actual bipartisan majority in both houses stood up against war crimes. Then a certain someone vetoed the resolution. The bill passed the House 247-175. Sixteen Republicans voted yes with Democrats and one voted present. In the Senate the vote was 54 to 46, with seven Republicans voting with Democrats. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/trump-vetoes-yemen-war-powers-resolution/index.html | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote: We'd hope, but the war crimes presidents commit/support have pretty bipartisan support so I doubt this political stuff moves the needle much if at all. It will make for a hell of a chapter in the books explaining why he is unequivocally the worst President in American history. That may be a little harsh tho. While the American Political Science Association's 170 bi-partisan political science scholars placed him in dead last among Presidents, the Siena College Research Institute's 157 scholars placed him as only 3rd worst. He beat out Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Not bad, tho that was before the Mueller report. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:45 wulfdog wrote: Unless you are talking about the War Crimes in Yemen. An actual bipartisan majority in both houses stood up against war crimes. Then a certain someone vetoed the resolution. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/trump-vetoes-yemen-war-powers-resolution/index.html I wouldn't categorize that as opposition to war crimes personally. That's was a resolution aimed at them taking some power back from Trump/the office of President, though some supporters of it did mention their support was tied to objections to support for Saudi Arabia's bombing of innocent children and so forth. Supporters of the War Powers Resolution argued the US shouldn't be involved in the war without explicit permission from Congress. Opponents argued the US does not have "boots on the ground" and is offering noncombat technical assistance to Saudi Arabia, an ally. Several supporters made clear their votes were also aimed at expressing their frustrations with Trump's continued support for Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has been implicated in the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 20 2019 02:45 wulfdog wrote: Unless you are talking about the War Crimes in Yemen. An actual bipartisan majority in both houses stood up against war crimes. Then a certain someone vetoed the resolution. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/trump-vetoes-yemen-war-powers-resolution/index.html We defiantly made torture ok and made policy of torturing people during and maybe beyond the Bush administration. And a whole bunch of other stuff. The US’s hands are far far far from clean. There are worse actors in the world, but we are very bad at holding people accountable at home. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On April 20 2019 03:17 Plansix wrote: It doesn’t help that Dick Cheney’s wife is a major player in the GOP and a member of Congress. Really puts a whole damper accountability. As I've mentioned before MSNBC has William Krystol on all the time despite their #1 ratings grabber (Rachel Maddow) having partially made her bones on systematically destroying his credibility and that of any organization with the audacity to give him a platform. It's easy to point it out on the other side as JimmiC points out, the reason we don't get anywhere though is an inability or refusal to see the same patterns within one's own party or self. That said I think "tribalism" is a poor descriptor. | ||
| ||
