• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:31
CEST 03:31
KST 10:31
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Ro4 Preview: Storied Rivals7Code S RO12 Preview: Maru, Trigger, Rogue, NightMare12Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, sOs, Reynor, Solar15[ASL19] Ro8 Preview: Unyielding3Official Ladder Map Pool Update (April 28, 2025)17
Community News
Dark to begin military service on May 13th (2025)13Weekly Cups (May 5-11): New 2v2 Champs1Maru & Rogue GSL RO12 interviews: "I think the pressure really got to [trigger]"5Code S Season 1 - Maru & Rogue advance to RO80Code S Season 1 - Cure & Reynor advance to RO84
StarCraft 2
General
Map Pool Suggestion: Throwback ERA Dark to begin military service on May 13th (2025) How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? I hope balance council is prepping final balance 2024/25 Off-Season Roster Moves
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group B Monday Nights Weeklies Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament [GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group A $1,250 WardiTV May [May 6th-May 18th]
Strategy
[G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed Mutation # 470 Certain Demise
Brood War
General
[ASL19] Ro4 Preview: Storied Rivals BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Battlenet Game Lobby Simulator Twitch StarCraft Holiday Bash (UMS) Artosis vs Ogre Zerg [The Legend Continues]
Tourneys
[ASL19] Semifinal A BSL Nation Wars 2 - Grand Finals - Saturday 21:00 [ASL19] Ro8 Day 4 [USBL Spring 2025] Groups cast
Strategy
[G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player Creating a full chart of Zerg builds [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Nintendo Switch Thread Grand Theft Auto VI Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Books] Wool by Hugh Howey Surprisingly good films/Hidden Gems
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Why 5v5 Games Keep Us Hooked…
TrAiDoS
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
BW PvZ Balance hypothetic…
Vasoline73
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 12880 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1510

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 4963 Next
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
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
May 30 2019 02:41 GMT
#30181
On May 30 2019 11:11 Neneu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 10:48 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent?

Flynn's a different case. But since you bring him up, I'm pretty sure that Trump was not even given a specific defensive briefing on Flynn where he was made aware of the fact that Flynn was under investigation for a particular crime. All he was given was a vague, unsubstantiated warning from Obama.

EDIT: And speaking of Flynn, I'm still not sold on him having done anything criminal. I think we're going to find out a lot more on this point by the end of the week, which, if I recall correctly, is the deadline for the prosecution to produce all recordings that the government has on Flynn.


I am curious about this part. Why was it a vague and unsubstantiated warning?

Because that’s what Trump said and there’s no information to the contrary. Rumor has it that Flynn was already under FISA surveillance at the time under a separate warrant. Neither this fact nor any other specific fact warranting caution was communicated to Trump.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8960 Posts
May 30 2019 02:44 GMT
#30182
On May 30 2019 11:41 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 11:11 Neneu wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:48 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent?

Flynn's a different case. But since you bring him up, I'm pretty sure that Trump was not even given a specific defensive briefing on Flynn where he was made aware of the fact that Flynn was under investigation for a particular crime. All he was given was a vague, unsubstantiated warning from Obama.

EDIT: And speaking of Flynn, I'm still not sold on him having done anything criminal. I think we're going to find out a lot more on this point by the end of the week, which, if I recall correctly, is the deadline for the prosecution to produce all recordings that the government has on Flynn.


I am curious about this part. Why was it a vague and unsubstantiated warning?

Because that’s what Trump said and there’s no information to the contrary. Rumor has it that Flynn was already under FISA surveillance at the time under a separate warrant. Neither this fact nor any other specific fact warranting caution was communicated to Trump.

This right here. Explains literally everything and any attempt to engage further should be referred back to this single item.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 03:40:45
May 30 2019 03:05 GMT
#30183
On May 30 2019 10:09 Doodsmack wrote:
The toddler president wouldn't be able to handle this distraction. Guess this explains why he spends his days doing as little work as possible.


Possible fake news.


Not that Trump hasn’t been chippy about McCain or anything.

Update: The new story is that the original was true, but not under the direction of the White House.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
May 30 2019 03:05 GMT
#30184
On May 30 2019 11:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 11:41 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:11 Neneu wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:48 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent?

Flynn's a different case. But since you bring him up, I'm pretty sure that Trump was not even given a specific defensive briefing on Flynn where he was made aware of the fact that Flynn was under investigation for a particular crime. All he was given was a vague, unsubstantiated warning from Obama.

EDIT: And speaking of Flynn, I'm still not sold on him having done anything criminal. I think we're going to find out a lot more on this point by the end of the week, which, if I recall correctly, is the deadline for the prosecution to produce all recordings that the government has on Flynn.


I am curious about this part. Why was it a vague and unsubstantiated warning?

Because that’s what Trump said and there’s no information to the contrary. Rumor has it that Flynn was already under FISA surveillance at the time under a separate warrant. Neither this fact nor any other specific fact warranting caution was communicated to Trump.

This right here. Explains literally everything and any attempt to engage further should be referred back to this single item.


I think it is an important point (I wouldn't trust Trump to tell me what day it was, let alone anything even slightly more complex), but I think it's currently being out worked by the one that followed.

there’s no information to the contrary


If this isn't true it should be easy to refute if it is true I think it takes more than nothing to overcome the argument that there's nothing supporting the argument it was actually a clear and substantiated warning that Trump got contrary to the argument presented.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
May 30 2019 03:09 GMT
#30185
On May 30 2019 11:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 11:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.


Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?


This is comparing apples to oranges. If there was enough proof that the President did murder some one, I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.


I don't know why people answer questions like this.

Your answer here is "no I do not have a threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to punt to congress without so much as even a recommendation"

Or "No, I don't" if they wanted to be brief.

Show nested quote +
I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.


This line is from 2017 back when impeachment was still seriously thought (by liberals) to be a possibility (beyond optics).


If you choose my answer for me, then what's the point? I gave you my thoughts, and instead you decided to re-word my post to your own liking. Conspiring with another country =/= Murder, if you think they're both the same, then maybe you're the one that needs to look at themselves, especially when you basically tried to put your words in my mouth...
Life?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
May 30 2019 03:14 GMT
#30186
On May 30 2019 12:09 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 11:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?


This is comparing apples to oranges. If there was enough proof that the President did murder some one, I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.


I don't know why people answer questions like this.

Your answer here is "no I do not have a threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to punt to congress without so much as even a recommendation"

Or "No, I don't" if they wanted to be brief.

I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.


This line is from 2017 back when impeachment was still seriously thought (by liberals) to be a possibility (beyond optics).


If you choose my answer for me, then what's the point? I gave you my thoughts, and instead you decided to re-word my post to your own liking. Conspiring with another country =/= Murder, if you think they're both the same, then maybe you're the one that needs to look at themselves, especially when you basically tried to put your words in my mouth...


Pick the crime you want? It's not relevant to the point. The question was whether you had a threshold or not, your answer decidedly indicates you don't. If you do you can say so and describe it now or drop the indignancy?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
May 30 2019 03:15 GMT
#30187
It is relevant... Not every crime is the same.
Life?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 03:17:00
May 30 2019 03:16 GMT
#30188
On May 30 2019 12:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
It is relevant... Not every crime is the same.


Pick a crime, any crime, where your threshold is (or any example of a crime that would be beyond it)?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 03:29:43
May 30 2019 03:23 GMT
#30189
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html
Life?
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
May 30 2019 03:29 GMT
#30190
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
May 30 2019 03:31 GMT
#30191
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...
Life?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 03:34:06
May 30 2019 03:33 GMT
#30192
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
May 30 2019 03:38 GMT
#30193
On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...

Yep. Lying is not the same as perjury. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you're probably in over your head with this conversation.
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
May 30 2019 04:03 GMT
#30194
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?

I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
Does it matter? It doesn't make xDaunt's premise that Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction of justice any less false. I wasn't posting about what Mueller should have done or whether what he did was acceptable. I'm still not going to. I want no part of that debate.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 04:32:05
May 30 2019 04:21 GMT
#30195
On May 30 2019 13:03 Kyadytim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?

I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
Does it matter?


Yes, I thought that was self-evident?

It doesn't make xDaunt's premise that Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction of justice any less false.


He's definitely stretching if he said "no evidence" but I see here in this quote train (this is why not quoting stuff is a pia unless one is intentionally obscuring/hiding the argument they are opposing and replacing it with their own) he said

did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice


Wouldn't be surprised if he tried "none" at some point but backed off it.

I wasn't posting about what Mueller should have done or whether what he did was acceptable. I'm still not going to. I want no part of that debate.


I quoted you? If you wanted to explore the contradiction at play it was certainly an invitation, but the question was for anyone advancing the argument that Mueller had no choice to recommend charges or the grand jury route. I'm terribly curious if that argument (that Mueller couldn't recommend charges/ or bring his own) was absolute or the people advancing it had some point where they would stop relying on Republicans in the senate to stop Trump?

Best I can tell they don't have a threshold or any idea what to do if Trump does really horrific stuff (beyond what he's already done/doing) and Republicans let him.

They aren't obligated to answer, but surely we can all see why having a system dependent on Republicans holding someone like Trump accountable is problematic and they should know whether they have an alternative for if the threshold for Republicans to impeach is unacceptable for them (if they have one, which so far it doesn't look like they do).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
May 30 2019 05:01 GMT
#30196
On May 30 2019 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 13:03 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?

I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
Does it matter?


Yes, I thought that was self-evident?

Show nested quote +
It doesn't make xDaunt's premise that Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction of justice any less false.


He's definitely stretching if he said "no evidence" but I see here in this quote train (this is why not quoting stuff is a pia unless one is intentionally obscuring/hiding the argument they are opposing and replacing it with their own) he said

Show nested quote +
did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice


Wouldn't be surprised if he tried "none" at some point but backed off it.

Show nested quote +
I wasn't posting about what Mueller should have done or whether what he did was acceptable. I'm still not going to. I want no part of that debate.


I quoted you? If you wanted to explore the contradiction at play it was certainly an invitation, but the question was for anyone advancing the argument that Mueller had no choice to recommend charges or the grand jury route. I'm terribly curious if that argument (that Mueller couldn't recommend charges/ or bring his own) was absolute or the people advancing it had some point where they would stop relying on Republicans in the senate to stop Trump?

Best I can tell they don't have a threshold or any idea what to do if Trump does really horrific stuff (beyond what he's already done/doing) and Republicans let him.

They aren't obligated to answer, but surely we can all see why having a system dependent on Republicans holding someone like Trump accountable is problematic and they should know whether they have an alternative for if the threshold for Republicans to impeach is unacceptable for them (if they have one, which so far it doesn't look like they do).

To the best of my knowledge, there's not actually anything (legal) that can be done about Trump if, no matter how horrific of things he might do, enough Republicans in the Senate will protect him from impeachment proceedings. I guess we could try indicting him and find out that McConnell's shenanigans regarding the Supreme Court paid off for Trump?

Forget Polaroids and a confession journal, though, I'm of the opinion Trump could live stream himself shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't matter because enough Republicans would call it fake news and continue to stand behind him. Sadly, deepfake technology existing makes this sort of behavior far more likely, because it gives vague cover to people blatantly denying reality.

Barring enough Senate Republicans voting to remove Trump from office, the 2020 election is basically it for legal recourse.

Specifically on the topic of Mueller choosing to not indict, I don't really care because I don't think it would have made a difference. If Trump was indicted, I think it would have gone to the Supreme Court and Gorusch and Kavanugh would vote alongside Roberts, Thomas, and Alito in finding that a sitting President cannot be tried for crimes and must be removed from office via impeachment proceedings first.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
May 30 2019 05:18 GMT
#30197
On May 30 2019 14:01 Kyadytim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 13:03 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?

I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
Does it matter?


Yes, I thought that was self-evident?

It doesn't make xDaunt's premise that Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction of justice any less false.


He's definitely stretching if he said "no evidence" but I see here in this quote train (this is why not quoting stuff is a pia unless one is intentionally obscuring/hiding the argument they are opposing and replacing it with their own) he said

did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice


Wouldn't be surprised if he tried "none" at some point but backed off it.

I wasn't posting about what Mueller should have done or whether what he did was acceptable. I'm still not going to. I want no part of that debate.


I quoted you? If you wanted to explore the contradiction at play it was certainly an invitation, but the question was for anyone advancing the argument that Mueller had no choice to recommend charges or the grand jury route. I'm terribly curious if that argument (that Mueller couldn't recommend charges/ or bring his own) was absolute or the people advancing it had some point where they would stop relying on Republicans in the senate to stop Trump?

Best I can tell they don't have a threshold or any idea what to do if Trump does really horrific stuff (beyond what he's already done/doing) and Republicans let him.

They aren't obligated to answer, but surely we can all see why having a system dependent on Republicans holding someone like Trump accountable is problematic and they should know whether they have an alternative for if the threshold for Republicans to impeach is unacceptable for them (if they have one, which so far it doesn't look like they do).

To the best of my knowledge, there's not actually anything (legal) that can be done about Trump if, no matter how horrific of things he might do, enough Republicans in the Senate will protect him from impeachment proceedings. I guess we could try indicting him and find out that McConnell's shenanigans regarding the Supreme Court paid off for Trump?

Forget Polaroids and a confession journal, though, I'm of the opinion Trump could live stream himself shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't matter because enough Republicans would call it fake news and continue to stand behind him. Sadly, deepfake technology existing makes this sort of behavior far more likely, because it gives vague cover to people blatantly denying reality.

Barring enough Senate Republicans voting to remove Trump from office, the 2020 election is basically it for legal recourse.

Specifically on the topic of Mueller choosing to not indict, I don't really care because I don't think it would have made a difference. If Trump was indicted, I think it would have gone to the Supreme Court and Gorusch and Kavanugh would vote alongside Roberts, Thomas, and Alito in finding that a sitting President cannot be tried for crimes and must be removed from office via impeachment proceedings first.


So yes, absolute. I don't know what I did wrong asking for that?

I think that then begs the question that if Trump can't be legally held accountable for even shooting someone in broad daylight, what benefit would there be for Republicans to abandon him ever or more specifically if say... he declares himself god-emperor and loyal Republicans the only senate, Republican appointees the only judges, and Republican elected officials the only local government that counts?

No matter how criminal and unconstitutional his actions you've relegated yourself (through this argument) to doing nothing (that you've described thus far) but vote for anyone Democrats require you to (whether they'll help or not) and hope Republicans miraculously find the horrific stuff they support impeachable when Trump does it. I find that troubling because it applies to practically anything Trump wants to do (on a whim) from concentration camps for Latin American immigrants to banning abortion across the country, plunging headlong into climate catastrophe, and on and on.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
May 30 2019 06:10 GMT
#30198
On May 30 2019 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 14:01 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 13:03 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?

I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
Does it matter?


Yes, I thought that was self-evident?

It doesn't make xDaunt's premise that Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction of justice any less false.


He's definitely stretching if he said "no evidence" but I see here in this quote train (this is why not quoting stuff is a pia unless one is intentionally obscuring/hiding the argument they are opposing and replacing it with their own) he said

did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice


Wouldn't be surprised if he tried "none" at some point but backed off it.

I wasn't posting about what Mueller should have done or whether what he did was acceptable. I'm still not going to. I want no part of that debate.


I quoted you? If you wanted to explore the contradiction at play it was certainly an invitation, but the question was for anyone advancing the argument that Mueller had no choice to recommend charges or the grand jury route. I'm terribly curious if that argument (that Mueller couldn't recommend charges/ or bring his own) was absolute or the people advancing it had some point where they would stop relying on Republicans in the senate to stop Trump?

Best I can tell they don't have a threshold or any idea what to do if Trump does really horrific stuff (beyond what he's already done/doing) and Republicans let him.

They aren't obligated to answer, but surely we can all see why having a system dependent on Republicans holding someone like Trump accountable is problematic and they should know whether they have an alternative for if the threshold for Republicans to impeach is unacceptable for them (if they have one, which so far it doesn't look like they do).

To the best of my knowledge, there's not actually anything (legal) that can be done about Trump if, no matter how horrific of things he might do, enough Republicans in the Senate will protect him from impeachment proceedings. I guess we could try indicting him and find out that McConnell's shenanigans regarding the Supreme Court paid off for Trump?

Forget Polaroids and a confession journal, though, I'm of the opinion Trump could live stream himself shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't matter because enough Republicans would call it fake news and continue to stand behind him. Sadly, deepfake technology existing makes this sort of behavior far more likely, because it gives vague cover to people blatantly denying reality.

Barring enough Senate Republicans voting to remove Trump from office, the 2020 election is basically it for legal recourse.

Specifically on the topic of Mueller choosing to not indict, I don't really care because I don't think it would have made a difference. If Trump was indicted, I think it would have gone to the Supreme Court and Gorusch and Kavanugh would vote alongside Roberts, Thomas, and Alito in finding that a sitting President cannot be tried for crimes and must be removed from office via impeachment proceedings first.


So yes, absolute. I don't know what I did wrong asking for that?

I think that then begs the question that if Trump can't be legally held accountable for even shooting someone in broad daylight, what benefit would there be for Republicans to abandon him ever or more specifically if say... he declares himself god-emperor and loyal Republicans the only senate, Republican appointees the only judges, and Republican elected officials the only local government that counts?

No matter how criminal and unconstitutional his actions you've relegated yourself (through this argument) to doing nothing (that you've described thus far) but vote for anyone Democrats require you to (whether they'll help or not) and hope Republicans miraculously find the horrific stuff they support impeachable when Trump does it. I find that troubling because it applies to practically anything Trump wants to do (on a whim) from concentration camps for Latin American immigrants to banning abortion across the country, plunging headlong into climate catastrophe, and on and on.


You didn't do anything wrong. I thought you were asking me my opinion on Mueller's actions, and I didn't want to talk about it.

Anyway, if you're looking for solutions, I am absolutely the wrong person. If you want pessimism, you've come to the right place. Trump and Republicans have driven home how helpless most of America is against about sixty bad actors fucking over the country.

Maybe you could provide some suggestions for alternatives to voting him out of office?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 06:23:35
May 30 2019 06:21 GMT
#30199
On May 30 2019 15:10 Kyadytim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 14:01 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 13:03 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1133877051520421890

Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.

Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com


Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?

Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?

I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
Does it matter?


Yes, I thought that was self-evident?

It doesn't make xDaunt's premise that Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction of justice any less false.


He's definitely stretching if he said "no evidence" but I see here in this quote train (this is why not quoting stuff is a pia unless one is intentionally obscuring/hiding the argument they are opposing and replacing it with their own) he said

did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice


Wouldn't be surprised if he tried "none" at some point but backed off it.

I wasn't posting about what Mueller should have done or whether what he did was acceptable. I'm still not going to. I want no part of that debate.


I quoted you? If you wanted to explore the contradiction at play it was certainly an invitation, but the question was for anyone advancing the argument that Mueller had no choice to recommend charges or the grand jury route. I'm terribly curious if that argument (that Mueller couldn't recommend charges/ or bring his own) was absolute or the people advancing it had some point where they would stop relying on Republicans in the senate to stop Trump?

Best I can tell they don't have a threshold or any idea what to do if Trump does really horrific stuff (beyond what he's already done/doing) and Republicans let him.

They aren't obligated to answer, but surely we can all see why having a system dependent on Republicans holding someone like Trump accountable is problematic and they should know whether they have an alternative for if the threshold for Republicans to impeach is unacceptable for them (if they have one, which so far it doesn't look like they do).

To the best of my knowledge, there's not actually anything (legal) that can be done about Trump if, no matter how horrific of things he might do, enough Republicans in the Senate will protect him from impeachment proceedings. I guess we could try indicting him and find out that McConnell's shenanigans regarding the Supreme Court paid off for Trump?

Forget Polaroids and a confession journal, though, I'm of the opinion Trump could live stream himself shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't matter because enough Republicans would call it fake news and continue to stand behind him. Sadly, deepfake technology existing makes this sort of behavior far more likely, because it gives vague cover to people blatantly denying reality.

Barring enough Senate Republicans voting to remove Trump from office, the 2020 election is basically it for legal recourse.

Specifically on the topic of Mueller choosing to not indict, I don't really care because I don't think it would have made a difference. If Trump was indicted, I think it would have gone to the Supreme Court and Gorusch and Kavanugh would vote alongside Roberts, Thomas, and Alito in finding that a sitting President cannot be tried for crimes and must be removed from office via impeachment proceedings first.


So yes, absolute. I don't know what I did wrong asking for that?

I think that then begs the question that if Trump can't be legally held accountable for even shooting someone in broad daylight, what benefit would there be for Republicans to abandon him ever or more specifically if say... he declares himself god-emperor and loyal Republicans the only senate, Republican appointees the only judges, and Republican elected officials the only local government that counts?

No matter how criminal and unconstitutional his actions you've relegated yourself (through this argument) to doing nothing (that you've described thus far) but vote for anyone Democrats require you to (whether they'll help or not) and hope Republicans miraculously find the horrific stuff they support impeachable when Trump does it. I find that troubling because it applies to practically anything Trump wants to do (on a whim) from concentration camps for Latin American immigrants to banning abortion across the country, plunging headlong into climate catastrophe, and on and on.


You didn't do anything wrong. I thought you were asking me my opinion on Mueller's actions, and I didn't want to talk about it.

Anyway, if you're looking for solutions, I am absolutely the wrong person. If you want pessimism, you've come to the right place. Trump and Republicans have driven home how helpless most of America is against about sixty bad actors fucking over the country.

Maybe you could provide some suggestions for alternatives to voting him out of office?


"Yes brother, perhaps you've heard of our lord and savior Revolution" /s

But yeah, engage in dialogue that draws our attention to the contradictions of capitalism and our political system, employ and spread problem posing educations models, develop basic skills required to survive in a society that is dramatically more localized (as well as relevant local circumstances which vary quite a bit), learn more about previous revolutions, just to name a few.

Granted I've been trying various methods of that for the last 2 years to little success while liberals were doing the RussiaGate thing which has proved decidedly useless for removing Trump (or preparing for what comes after Trump even if they win).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 30 2019 11:24 GMT
#30200
--- Nuked ---
Prev 1 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 4963 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 GSL S1 - Ro12 Group A
CranKy Ducklings145
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft546
RuFF_SC2 141
NeuroSwarm 60
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 20679
Artosis 801
ajuk12(nOOB) 21
Icarus 8
Dota 2
monkeys_forever4
Counter-Strike
Fnx 501
Stewie2K148
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox679
C9.Mang0585
PPMD46
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor153
Other Games
summit1g9447
shahzam677
WinterStarcraft434
Maynarde352
JimRising 321
Day[9].tv316
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1037
BasetradeTV216
StarCraft 2
ESL.tv107
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 65
• davetesta42
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Eskiya23 9
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift5672
Other Games
• Day9tv316
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
8h 29m
Afreeca Starleague
8h 29m
Snow vs Soulkey
WardiTV Invitational
9h 29m
PiGosaur Monday
22h 29m
GSL Code S
1d 7h
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs Cure
Replay Cast
1d 22h
GSL Code S
2 days
Classic vs Reynor
GuMiho vs Maru
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
GSL Code S
3 days
[ Show More ]
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
SOOP
4 days
Online Event
5 days
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Nation Wars Season 2
PiG Sty Festival 6.0
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
2025 GSL S1
Heroes 10 EU
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

NPSL S3
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
DreamHack Dallas 2025
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.