EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1419
| 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 | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:22 Danglars wrote: So we're starting the leak phase where damaging information the OIG is uncovering is leaked ahead of his report. He's investigating the start of the counterintelligence probe against the President, and whether the conduct of the investigation was above board. The latest leak was made to the New York Times. Here, the spin is that these operations were hidden from Trump for Trump's own benefit, and not that Americans would be a little peeved to find out that one administration was running overseas assets against rival politicians. We've already had the most nutso allegations against Barr to try to make people distrust his office's results. I fear this will just get worse. Yeah, they're definitely trying to get ahead of what's coming. But the bodies aren't buried in that time frame. The real question is what started Crossfire Hurricane, which brings us back to the question of who is Mifsud and what was he doing with Papadopoulos in the Spring of 2016. Like Barr said, the fact that spying happened isn't in dispute. What matters is whether there was a valid predicate. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:35 Logo wrote: How does the current modus operendi compare to the previous political climate re: Hillary. Regardless of what you believe about the underlying truth in either case clearly the hearings then and the hearings now are politically charged with the aim of 'catching' the respective people. Yet it doesn't really seem like it was a significant issue for Hillary to appear in front of congress and provide answers? I don't recall the republicans actively trying to create perjury traps like the democrats did with Barr. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:35 Logo wrote: How does the current modus operendi compare to the previous political climate re: Hillary. Regardless of what you believe about the underlying truth in either case clearly the hearings then and the hearings now are politically charged with the aim of 'catching' the respective people. Yet it doesn't really seem like it was a significant issue for Hillary to appear in front of congress and provide answers? The reasoning is that the Clintons are a criminals of the highest order, bad and shady and now “her people” are trying to stop Trump and the good Republicans like Barr from uncovering the truth. The Republican obsession with getting a Clinton charged with a crime goes back to the 1990s and Watergate. And you notice now how Obama is now getting roped in as one of Clinton’s big allies and was part of some conspiracy to get her elected or something? It never ends. Edit: And apparently the republicans asked fair questions and didn't try to create the now mythical "Perjury trap" which is when you lie to congress but it isn't your fault, or something. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:36 xDaunt wrote: I don't recall the republicans actively trying to create perjury traps like the democrats did with Barr. There isn't much of a trap to lay if you aren't prone to lying all the time. Also entrapment is a very specific thing but the basic is that you cannot be goaded into committing a crime you would have not committed otherwise. Often this means no one can can encourage the person to partake in the crime directly but laying bait for someone to stumble upon is perfectly fine. The thrust of it being that the impetus to commit the crime comes from them. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:36 xDaunt wrote: I don't recall the republicans actively trying to create perjury traps like the democrats did with Barr. Please explicitly lay out the perjury trap that you think Crist attempted. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:54 xDaunt wrote: There's a difference between simply lying to Congress and being intentionally set up and manipulated into lying before Congress. In the case of the former, I fully expect perjurers to be prosecuted in accordance with the law and have no problem with such prosecution. I do, however, I have a big problem with the latter. It's never a good thing for government officials to try entrapping people into committing crimes that they otherwise would not commit. This is what the Democrats tried with Barr. You mean like how Bill Clinton was framed even though he did not lie against the agreed definition of sexual relation? That is a republican move. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
So to create a perjury trap, you need to trick someone into willingly saying something they know to be false, under oath. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 03 2019 04:03 Neneu wrote: You mean like how Bill Clinton was framed even though he did not lie against the agreed definition of sexual relation? That is a republican move. First, that was more than twenty years ago. Virtually none of the republicans involved then are involved now. Second, it wasn't framing anyway. Bill gave a dishonest answer to a direct question regarding something that he had done. There was no set up. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 03 2019 04:17 xDaunt wrote: First, that was more than twenty years ago. Virtually none of the republicans involved then are involved now. Second, it wasn't framing anyway. Bill gave a dishonest answer to a direct question regarding something that he had done. There was no set up. I believe there are numerous choice clips of folks on Trump's team that would define what you're saying as a "straight line", in comedic terms. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Never forget that in the 1990s more than a few same people that are in the senate now went after Clinton for lying under oath about an extra marital affair. Better known as something that many Americans quietly admitted was one of the few things they commit perjury to conceal. Those same people are now defending someone who lies to the American people daily about any number of topics and lied to the American people while running for office. There is no way to hold the opinion that Clinton should have been impeached while also arguing that Trump shouldn’t be. It is an impossible double standard to upkeep and have a shred of integrity while doing it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24049 Posts
On May 02 2019 20:57 Gorsameth wrote: Because if Trump did nothing wrong then there is no argument for trying to impeach him. (ignoring for the moment the fact that there is no need for a reason to impeach) I would obviously have preferred Mueller to charge Trump. I would have preferred Mueller to ignore the DoJ guidelines but I also accept that Mueller chose to follow those guidelines and therefor chose to punt. His reasoning is sound, even if I don't like the result. I consider the evidence for Obstruction, much of which we didn't know about, to be damning. Not that Mueller chose to punt over exonerate. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller? Ordering him to forget that he ordered him to fire Mueller? Ordering Sessions to change the scope of the investigation? That to me seems like clear evidence that he tried to stop the investigation from doing its job and knew that what he was doing was wrong. I also think it wasn't up to Barr to decide what to do considering he was specifically hired because of his pre-existing opinion that the President is above the law. His opinion isn't worth the paper it was written on. Since Mueller punted, Barr's opinion is irrelevant (imo) and Congress is paralysed it falls back to the voters, and I think its important that people actually read the report to see what Mueller uncovered and decide for themselves if they think the events are worthy or not of a President. And for that it is important that people know what the report actually says and I will therefor point it out if people miss represent what the report said. I felt like it was abundantly clear that Barr was going to clear Trump (Mueller didn't want to take that hit to his legacy, since most people ignore his role in the massive criminal spying that happened to US citizens) before he was confirmed with votes from both parties. People have already decided. Trump got as close to obstructing justice as you can get (as far as we know) without getting held accountable. The naked political nature of dragging this out fits Trump's narrative better than a Democrat one. Let's grant for the sake of argument that Trump undeniably obstructed justice and broke the law, all that does is definitively make the justice system defunct with regard to presidents who have adequate political support. | ||
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
On May 03 2019 04:17 xDaunt wrote: First, that was more than twenty years ago. Virtually none of the republicans involved then are involved now. Second, it wasn't framing anyway. Bill gave a dishonest answer to a direct question regarding something that he had done. There was no set up. They provided him a definition that excluded blowjobs, then asked him if he'd done anything that met that definition. Also no, Gingrich was the architect of that and he's still going strong. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:36 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, they're definitely trying to get ahead of what's coming. But the bodies aren't buried in that time frame. The real question is what started Crossfire Hurricane, which brings us back to the question of who is Mifsud and what was he doing with Papadopoulos in the Spring of 2016. Like Barr said, the fact that spying happened isn't in dispute. What matters is whether there was a valid predicate. I suspect that no one’s hands are clean. Make no mistake: Trump is an idiot and a criminal. But this might prove to be very interesting and should concern anyone who takes elections seriously. | ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States766 Posts
On May 03 2019 05:34 IgnE wrote: I suspect that no one’s hands are clean. Make no mistake: Trump is an idiot and a criminal. But this might prove to be very interesting and should concern anyone who takes elections seriously. It's the giant elephant in the room. The 2020 election is a clusterfuck no matter what. If Dems win, Trump won't accept the results. If Trump wins, it will have huge legitimacy questions. There is no stopping this scenario from happening. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 03 2019 04:49 KwarK wrote: They provided him a definition that excluded blowjobs, then asked him if he'd done anything that met that definition. Also no, Gingrich was the architect of that and he's still going strong. I don't believe that this is correct. He was asked a very broad definition and he monkeyed around with his answer. That's what got him into trouble. Keep in mind that his trouble went beyond Congress and the impeachment hearing, but also included the federal court in Arkansas who subsequently found him in contempt of court. There's a very good reason why Clinton was disbarred after all of this. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On May 03 2019 03:26 xDaunt wrote: It doesn't work that way. Barr is as seasoned and experienced as they come, yet look at how the Democrats tried to manufacture a bullshit perjury trap against him using Mueller's letter and some clumsy questioning by Crist. No one in their right mind would voluntarily appear before Congress given this current modus operandi. It's not a trap when he is guilty of the thing, but hey you keep living in your fabricated world. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 03 2019 05:55 hunts wrote: It's not a trap when he is guilty of the thing, but hey you keep living in your fabricated world. "It's not my guy's fault for lying all the time, it's your guys' fault by trying to put him in a position where all that lying matters!" | ||
| ||
