|
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 |
On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:03 Doodsmack wrote:
Interesting to see that the FBI is involved in the stormy Daniels deal. This is certainly something that Michael Cohen deserved, though.
holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking.
How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative?
|
On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative?
While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense.
|
On April 10 2018 05:24 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought President Dennison didn't actually sign the NDA? It was one of the arguments for why it is a voided agreement iirc.
Still, 'David' denying knowledge seems bad for Cohen since he made a payment regarding a case which could lead to litigation without his client's knowledge.
The question is if he is willing to go down for DD.
It goes farther than that. Trump said he didn’t know about the payment or agreement. Attorneys are not allowed to enter agreements without their client’s approval. Attorneys cannot without information from their clients about potential exposure to liability. And attorneys are not allowed to make payments from personal funds that benefit their client. I am not surprised that is could be used to undercut their attorney client privilege. The privilege only works because the attorney is assumed to be always playing by the rules.
|
The Cohen raid is likely the result of Mueller handing something off. Reporting indicates that this is of interest to a state. Southern district of NY?
|
On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense.
Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have.
Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability.
|
On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability.
Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either.
|
On April 10 2018 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:24 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought President Dennison didn't actually sign the NDA? It was one of the arguments for why it is a voided agreement iirc.
Still, 'David' denying knowledge seems bad for Cohen since he made a payment regarding a case which could lead to litigation without his client's knowledge.
The question is if he is willing to go down for DD. It goes farther than that. Trump said he didn’t know about the payment or agreement. Attorneys are not allowed to enter agreements without their client’s approval. Attorneys cannot without information from their clients about potential exposure to liability. And attorneys are not allowed to make payments from personal funds that benefit their client. I am not surprised that is could be used to undercut their attorney client privilege. The privilege only works because the attorney is assumed to be always playing by the rules.
Let us not forget that Cohen went to perhaps the worst law school in the country. I am keeping open the possibility that Trump actually didn't know and that Cohen is simply incompetent. I dont see any way Cohen comes out of this clean.
|
On April 10 2018 05:47 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:24 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought President Dennison didn't actually sign the NDA? It was one of the arguments for why it is a voided agreement iirc.
Still, 'David' denying knowledge seems bad for Cohen since he made a payment regarding a case which could lead to litigation without his client's knowledge.
The question is if he is willing to go down for DD. It goes farther than that. Trump said he didn’t know about the payment or agreement. Attorneys are not allowed to enter agreements without their client’s approval. Attorneys cannot without information from their clients about potential exposure to liability. And attorneys are not allowed to make payments from personal funds that benefit their client. I am not surprised that is could be used to undercut their attorney client privilege. The privilege only works because the attorney is assumed to be always playing by the rules. Let us not forget that Cohen went to perhaps the worst law school in the country. I am keeping open the possibility that Trump actually didn't know and that Cohen is simply incompetent. I dont see any way Cohen comes out of this clean.
There is no way they searched that office without an air tight search warrant. No Judge approves that thing without overwhelming evidence of wrong doing and things that would void attorney client privilege. It will be the most scrutinized decisions that judge ever makes.
|
On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
holy shit.
I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either.
Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone.
|
On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
*pukes in mouth a little*
You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone.
It matters who it is and how they go about it. You really don't want Mueller to be your hero either. Remember he helped facilitate some heinous stuff at the FBI and helped the NFL get off in the Ray Rice incident.
But the agency having comparable authority to a special counsel seems rational, though I can't be said to thoroughly understand the legal specifics and jurisdictions with which it currently operates.
EDIT: I wouldn't really be celebrating this Cohen thing either
EDIT 2: I'd pick Comrade Ja btw
|
On April 10 2018 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:
[quote]
Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. It matters who it is and how they go about it. You really don't want Mueller to be your hero either. Remember he helped facilitate some heinous stuff at the FBI and helped the NFL get off in the Ray Rice incident. But the agency having comparable authority to a special counsel seems rational, though I can't be said to thoroughly understand the legal specifics and jurisdictions with which it currently operates. EDIT: I wouldn't really be celebrating this Cohen thing either EDIT 2: I'd pick Comrade Ja btw
You're right, I am being overly playful. My point is that my main objective is for elected officials to feel like they could totally end up in prison or otherwise charged for their crimes. I'm not focused on Mueller as an individual. I am focused on him taking people down. I want elected officials to live in fear of being taken down.
If elected officials live in fear, that's a success.
|
On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
*pukes in mouth a little*
You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone.
I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget.
|
On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:
[quote]
Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget.
roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh?
|
On April 10 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around.
Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence.
It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget. roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh?
This congress will not impeach the President, even at the FBI’s report shows clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. If congress changes hands in November, then it could happen. But that might not result in Trump being removed from office. Impeachment and removal from office are political processes. If the public is not convinced Trump should go, Congress won’t remove him. I've never really said otherwise.
The only 100% sure way to remove Trump is to have a candidate with a positive approval rating in 2020.
|
On April 10 2018 06:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget. roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh? This congress will not impeach the President, even at the FBI’s report shows clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. If congress changes hands in November, then it could happen. But that might not result in Trump being removed from office. Impeachment and removal from office are political processes. If the public is not convinced Trump should go, Congress won’t remove him. I've never really said otherwise. The only 100% sure way to remove Trump is to have a candidate with a positive approval rating in 2020.
I'm of the opinion that they won't remove him even if a majority of the country demands it. They haven't been much of a check so far, and their fate is intertwined with his, so I don't see anyone making a move to dump him when (not if) that comes down the pipe. It's a fucking travesty. It's so strange to me that the system working to keep Trump in check right now is the same system that let his incompetent ass into office in the first place. That's democracy I guess.
|
On April 10 2018 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:24 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought President Dennison didn't actually sign the NDA? It was one of the arguments for why it is a voided agreement iirc.
Still, 'David' denying knowledge seems bad for Cohen since he made a payment regarding a case which could lead to litigation without his client's knowledge.
The question is if he is willing to go down for DD. It goes farther than that. Trump said he didn’t know about the payment or agreement. Attorneys are not allowed to enter agreements without their client’s approval. Attorneys cannot without information from their clients about potential exposure to liability. And attorneys are not allowed to make payments from personal funds that benefit their client. I am not surprised that is could be used to undercut their attorney client privilege. The privilege only works because the attorney is assumed to be always playing by the rules. Most likely the Attorney did things by the book (I assume hes is no idiot). The problem is Trumps pathological tendency to lie.
If Trump says "no comment" the FBI doesn't have the evidence to raid Cohen.
Trump saying "My lawyer acted illegally and without my knowledge" (Not those exact words but that meaning) does provide that evidence.
Which is why no one wants to represent Trump. Because he will fuck his lawyer up the ass over nothing.
|
On April 10 2018 06:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered. Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget. roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh? This congress will not impeach the President, even at the FBI’s report shows clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. If congress changes hands in November, then it could happen. But that might not result in Trump being removed from office. Impeachment and removal from office are political processes. If the public is not convinced Trump should go, Congress won’t remove him. I've never really said otherwise. The only 100% sure way to remove Trump is to have a candidate with a positive approval rating in 2020.
There's no chance of Democrats winning enough seats to impeach Trump. It's been that way since this all started. I've been saying it for months. I'm glad you're almost there now and I hope more liberals follow you there.
As to 2020, you know the Democrats have been and will do anything they can to stop the most popular politician in the country or whomever campaigns in his stead from winning. So I wouldn't look to Democrats to stop Trump in 2020.
|
On April 10 2018 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 06:34 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking. How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget. roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh? This congress will not impeach the President, even at the FBI’s report shows clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. If congress changes hands in November, then it could happen. But that might not result in Trump being removed from office. Impeachment and removal from office are political processes. If the public is not convinced Trump should go, Congress won’t remove him. I've never really said otherwise. The only 100% sure way to remove Trump is to have a candidate with a positive approval rating in 2020. There's no chance of Democrats winning enough seats to impeach Trump. It's been that way since this all started. I've been saying it for months. I'm glad you're almost there now and I hope more liberals follow you there. As to 2020, you know the Democrats have been and will do anything they can to stop the most popular politician in the country or whomever campaigns in his stead from winning. So I wouldn't look to Democrats to stop Trump in 2020.
They need a majority in the House, which is in play this election due to the large number of Republican retirements. I've never really had a different option on the investigation than the one I just stated. I didn't really get anyplace.
|
On April 10 2018 06:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:34 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
How do you suggest we establish effective oversight? The messiness is not lost on me. In the absence of a better idea, the least shitty one wins. I'm not seeing your alternative. What is your alternative? While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense. Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget. roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh? This congress will not impeach the President, even at the FBI’s report shows clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. If congress changes hands in November, then it could happen. But that might not result in Trump being removed from office. Impeachment and removal from office are political processes. If the public is not convinced Trump should go, Congress won’t remove him. I've never really said otherwise. The only 100% sure way to remove Trump is to have a candidate with a positive approval rating in 2020. There's no chance of Democrats winning enough seats to impeach Trump. It's been that way since this all started. I've been saying it for months. I'm glad you're almost there now and I hope more liberals follow you there. As to 2020, you know the Democrats have been and will do anything they can to stop the most popular politician in the country or whomever campaigns in his stead from winning. So I wouldn't look to Democrats to stop Trump in 2020. They need a majority in the House, which is in play this election due to the large number of Republican retirements. I've never really had a different option on the investigation than the one I just stated. I didn't really get anyplace.
They need more than a majority in the house to impeach Trump, and they 100% aren't getting it even in the most optimistic and ambitious projections.
Whether you've changed your position or not, impeaching Trump isn't happening and the sooner folks accept that the better.
So since that's not happening, it's time to address how Democrats are their own worst enemy in beating Trump in 2020.
|
On April 10 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 06:54 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:34 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 10 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
While abolishing the police an independent auditing agency formed with transparency and accountability at it's heart will be needed, I don't see why they can't have an arm focused on congress and the executive as well, or a similarly structured but separate group if that makes more sense.
Sure, it doesn't need to be the FBI. But it needs to be someone who can kick doors down the way Mueller has been. Stopping Russian oligarchs as they exit their private jets isn't easy. The FBI has a certain amount of muscle other agencies do not have. Whatever the case, whatever the office, whatever the mechanism, those teeth need to be really, really sharp. The people being watched need to be sweating and need to live very anxious, stressful lives. They need to know they are walking on egg shells at all times. If you are saying we don't need the FBI for that, by all means. But so far, investigations like Mueller's have been the best way to create actual accountability. Surely I won't disagree about accountability and such. My point was that the FBI shouldn't even be in consideration for such a task. You probably shouldn't put so much stock in Mueller either. Whether its the FBI or Rosanne or Jarule, I don't care. So long as they can accomplish the same things Mueller can, it can be anyone. I wouldn’t be to concerned at this point. Mueller is going to make a recommendation to congress on his findings. He isn’t going to charge a sitting president with a crime. He is going to build the strong case possible, which means leaning on the majority opinion in the legal community that the President cannot be charged with a crime. It is going to be up to our elected officials to address the problem after that. The FBI isn’t going to be able to blackmail congress any time soon, since congress controls their budget. roflmao @ bold. So, you're with me that it's not happening? Don't suppose that means it can fade into the background until at least the recommendation comes out though eh? This congress will not impeach the President, even at the FBI’s report shows clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. If congress changes hands in November, then it could happen. But that might not result in Trump being removed from office. Impeachment and removal from office are political processes. If the public is not convinced Trump should go, Congress won’t remove him. I've never really said otherwise. The only 100% sure way to remove Trump is to have a candidate with a positive approval rating in 2020. There's no chance of Democrats winning enough seats to impeach Trump. It's been that way since this all started. I've been saying it for months. I'm glad you're almost there now and I hope more liberals follow you there. As to 2020, you know the Democrats have been and will do anything they can to stop the most popular politician in the country or whomever campaigns in his stead from winning. So I wouldn't look to Democrats to stop Trump in 2020. They need a majority in the House, which is in play this election due to the large number of Republican retirements. I've never really had a different option on the investigation than the one I just stated. I didn't really get anyplace. They need more than a majority in the house to impeach Trump, and they 100% aren't getting it even in the most optimistic and ambitious projections. Whether you've changed your position or not, impeaching Trump isn't happening and the sooner folks accept that the better. So since that's not happening, it's time to address how Democrats are their own worst enemy in beating Trump in 2020.
A simple majority is needed to invoke the articles of impeachment in both the Judiciary Committee and then the House at large. You are confusing impeachment with removal from office, which is a common mistake. Impeachment is the start of a trial of the President by the Senate, which can lead to removal from office. It can also lead to censure, in the most recent case of Bill Clinton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
