- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 33,035
- Reaction score
- 23,486
Up the stakes imo
Trump soils himself publicly sometime during his presidency: Homer yes, Waiguoren no.
Loser gets "tribalism is a failed predictive model" tattooed across their chest
Up the stakes imo
Up the stakes imo
Trump soils himself publicly sometime during his presidency: Homer yes, Waiguoren no.
Loser gets "tribalism is a failed predictive model" tattooed across their chest
DoIt.gif
Do you actually think Trump "colluded" with Russia? As the intrepid @kpt018 pointed out, that word has no meaning in this context.
Trump "distributed" DNC e-mails? What does that mean?
The "top NS adviser" held that position for 24 days (average tenure: 950 days) and seems to have been fired for lying to the Vice President about his contacts with Russia.
You have no evidence that Trump fired Comey for refusing to stop the investigation.
This is what politics looks like when a party realizes that refusing to hold their politicians accountable helps put and keep them in power.That's not what he pointed out. There were a lot of crimes committed in the process of the collusion, but "collusion" wasn't the name of them. And I don't see how anyone denies that the campaign colluded with Russia.
Russia distributed them though one of its propaganda arms. Timed to be of maximal help to Trump (right after the Access Hollywood tapes) and presented in a misleading way.
Now you're playing lawyer for the administration. The fact that Trump's people have such a short tenure because of their corruption is hardly a defense. He was also Trump's top adviser on NS during the campaign (and someone floated as a VP possibility). And very obviously Flynn was not fired for lying to the VP. Assuming he did lie to Pence, that was known well before he was fired. It was when the story became public that Trump had no choice but to push him out. None of this is relevant to the main point. If this had been a Democratic president, it would be over.
Huh? There's lots of evidence for that, including (but not limited to) the fact that Trump said that that's why he fired him in a televised interview. Again, that would be fatal to a Democratic president. Shit, just publicly calling for political opponents to be arrested would be enough to sink a Democratic president. Trump regularly does stuff that would be career enders for Democrats.
You can't lie to law enforcement, if there's no government.@waiguoren
See this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/18-crucial-days-what-did-president-know-when-did-he-n828261
Looks like Mueller is at least looking into whether Trump instructed Flynn to lie to the FBI about contacts with Russia, and if he did, that would explain a lot of otherwise odd facts about Flynn's actions (could also be explained by Flynn not being mentally stable, of course). As someone who claims to be a libertarian, would you have any problem with the president instructing his people to lie to law enforcement?
You can't lie to law enforcement, if there's no government.
I think they're basically edge lords, who want to be anti-establishment, but can't even get that right.Good point.
You know, I'm legitimately disappointed with how many right-wing libertarians have handled Trump. Everyone knows right-wing Evangelicals are almost all hypocrites so their support is no issue, but I had thought these guys were true believers in their ideology.
That's not what he pointed out. There were a lot of crimes committed in the process of the collusion, but "collusion" wasn't the name of them. And I don't see how anyone denies that the campaign colluded with Russia.
Now you're playing lawyer for the administration. The fact that Trump's people have such a short tenure because of their corruption is hardly a defense.
He was also Trump's top adviser on NS during the campaign (and someone floated as a VP possibility). And very obviously Flynn was not fired for lying to the VP. Assuming he did lie to Pence, that was known well before he was fired.
You don't know this. You want this to be true, for tribalist reasons.It was when the story became public that Trump had no choice but to push him out.
Again, you haven't established that Trump carried out any inappropriate behavior. In fact, I do find many of Trump's actions inappropriate, but so far you've barked up the wrong tree.If this had been a Democratic president, it would be over.
Produce the time-stamped interview clip. Here, I'll help you:Huh? There's lots of evidence for that, including (but not limited to) the fact that Trump said that that's why he fired him in a televised interview.
None have tried it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. I could imagine Loony Bernie or someone of his ilk saying something to that effect. The Huff Po Bernie Bros on your team would lap it up. "LOCK UP THE BANKERS! LOCK UP THEIR ENABLERS%!@%^"Shit, just publicly calling for political opponents to be arrested would be enough to sink a Democratic president.
You moved the goalposts. My claim is that there is no evidence that President Trump himself "colluded" with Russia. You changed "Trump" to "the campaign", which is a weasel tactic as we both know political campaigns are sprawling machines comprising thousands of individuals.
At least you acknowledge that "collusion" is not a legal term in this context. There is no crime that Trump could be indicted for called "collusion". You have refused my offers to bet on Trump being indicted for any such crimes, probably because you realize that Dershowitz is correct.
Under our system of government, the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice or any other crime simply for exercising his constitutional authority to fire the FBI Director or Robert Mueller, or for telling someone to shut down an investigation into his campaign. This is unfortunate, and our system should be changed, but that's the status quo.
Your thinking on this question appears highly muddled, undoubtedly owing to tribalism.
Tribalists lump their enemies and all their enemies' associates together into one evil group. You are claiming that the presence of Michael Flynn as a top member of Trump's cabinet is evidence that the entire administration and/or Trump himself is "colluding" with Russia. To any rational person, this is improper.
In this case, of course it is reasonable to point out that Trump was unwilling to tolerate even the appearance of an inappropriate connection to Russia. Flynn was fired swiftly.
This shows either ignorance or dishonesty on your part. I do hope it is the former.
Yates spoke to McGahn about Flynn from January 24 to January 27. By February 13, Flynn was fired.
I sincerely hope you were just confused on this point and not trying to win an argument through weasel tactics.
You don't know this. You want this to be true, for tribalist reasons.
Again, you haven't established that Trump carried out any inappropriate behavior. In fact, I do find many of Trump's actions inappropriate, but so far you've barked up the wrong tree.
Moreover, the Clintons got away with a variety of questionable behavior including multiple inappropriate pardons. Hillary Clinton's handling of the Rajiv Fernando appointment was highly inappropriate, yet Clinton still won the popular vote. This is evidence that your claim is wrong.
Produce the time-stamped interview clip. Here, I'll help you:
If you actually listen to the interview with open ears instead of reading a left-wing blogger's summary of it, you might be surprised. You will find that not only is your claim unsubstantiated, but that Trump actually said the opposite of what you claim: he says he did not fire Comey in order to shut down the investigation.
None have tried it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. I could imagine Loony Bernie or someone of his ilk saying something to that effect. The Huff Po Bernie Bros on your team would lap it up. "LOCK UP THE BANKERS! LOCK UP THEIR ENABLERS%!@%^"
You moved the goalposts. My claim is that there is no evidence that President Trump himself "colluded" with Russia. You changed "Trump" to "the campaign", which is a weasel tactic as we both know political campaigns are sprawling machines comprising thousands of individuals.
At least you acknowledge that "collusion" is not a legal term in this context. There is no crime that Trump could be indicted for called "collusion". You have refused my offers to bet on Trump being indicted for any such crimes, probably because you realize that Dershowitz is correct.
Under our system of government, the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice or any other crime simply for exercising his constitutional authority to fire the FBI Director or Robert Mueller, or for telling someone to shut down an investigation into his campaign. This is unfortunate, and our system should be changed, but that's the status quo.
In this case, of course it is reasonable to point out that Trump was unwilling to tolerate even the appearance of an inappropriate connection to Russia. Flynn was fired swiftly.
Again, you haven't established that Trump carried out any inappropriate behavior. In fact, I do find many of Trump's actions inappropriate, but so far you've barked up the wrong tree.
Moreover, the Clintons got away with a variety of questionable behavior including multiple inappropriate pardons. Hillary Clinton's handling of the Rajiv Fernando appointment was highly inappropriate, yet Clinton still won the popular vote. This is evidence that your claim is wrong.
Produce the time-stamped interview clip.
And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.
None have tried it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. I could imagine Loony Bernie or someone of his ilk saying something to that effect. The Huff Po Bernie Bros on your team would lap it up. "LOCK UP THE BANKERS! LOCK UP THEIR ENABLERS%!@%^"
You asserted that Trump colluded with the Russians. After I pressed you on it, you changed to "the campaign" colluding with the Russians. Anyone with half a brain can see that's shifting the goalposts.There's no goalpost moving
Specify your terms. You assume he was "in control" enough that he knew exactly which unethical behaviors Flynn and Manafort had engaged in outside the campaign? That's a big stretch.I assume only that Trump is in control of his own campaign,
You still haven't provided any evidence that Donald Trump himself was "in cahoots" with Russia to do anything illegal or even unethical.I wouldn't call it an acknowledgement, and I haven't read Dershowitz's argument, but to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that collusion was the name of the crime here. It's just used to mean that they were in cahoots, as Russia was hacking Trump's opponent, deceptively distributing it, spreading fake news around social media, etc.
Strawman. Drink your morning coffee before reading my posts or they might go over your head. I engage with you in part because I expect you to read my post fairly before responding.Yes, I've seen that ridiculous argument. You've gone from playing lawyer to Trump, to uncritically repeating a much-mocked claim by his actual lawyer. Vox has a piece with people weighing in on it:
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16733422/fbi-deal-trump-flynn-russia-comey
When do you think Trump became aware? As far as I know, January 24, 2017 is the earliest Trump would have known.This is simply inaccurate. Flynn was fired long after Trump would have been aware that he was lying to Pence
I have written many times on these forums that I do find that behavior inappropriate. Sets a bad precedent. Shouldn't be impeachable, in my opinion.You don't consider the president tweeting out that law enforcement should go after his opponent (who, NB, was investigated and cleared) to be inappropriate?
Clinton left office with very high approval ratings despite criminal activity, plenty of obfuscation in public interviews, and multiple shady pardons throughout his tenure. This badly hurts your argument that Democrats would be pilloried for shady behavior. EDIT: I should have written that this undermines your argument that a Democratic president would have been impeached and removed from office for such behavior."The Clintons" is funny. Bill was the president.
You claimed that in an interview, Trump admitted to firing Comey in order to end the investigation. I am waiting for the evidence. This is a major backtrack on your part.Heh. You know that Trump's inability to focus enough to express a clear thought in a sentence makes that approach impossible.
He said he was going to fire him regardless of the recommendation of Rosenstein and this:
Lester keeps asking him if he really means what he said there, and he kind of weasels away from answering. He also plays dumb about Russian hacking and generally interfering with the election (and interestingly grants that it's horrible while absurdly denying it).
Being a liberal, I don't have a "team" the way you do.
And re-read your first sentence here. You're saying that in a hypothetical world where the loonies have taken over the Democratic Party the way they've taken over the GOP, loonies on the left would be OK with it.
You asserted that Trump colluded with the Russians. After I pressed you on it, you changed to "the campaign" colluding with the Russians.
Specify your terms. You assume he was "in control" enough that he knew exactly which unethical behaviors Flynn and Manafort had engaged in outside the campaign? That's a big stretch.
You also still haven't listed a single crime that you suspect Trump to be guilty of.
But: the president can never be guilty of obstruction of justice for merely* pardoning a criminal, firing an inferior, or merely using his words to persuade someone to stop an investigation into him or his associates. *if money changed hands, bribery (a crime) could be involved. Hence my use of the term "merely"
The Vox article you posted is therefore irrelevant to my argument. But if you are so tribalistic that you will only accept arguments that appear on cushy left-wing sites, check the opinion of law Professor Ric Simmons on that page.
When do you think Trump became aware? As far as I know, January 24, 2017 is the earliest Trump would have known.
I have written many times on these forums that I do find that behavior inappropriate. Sets a bad precedent. Shouldn't be impeachable, in my opinion.
Clinton left office with very high approval ratings despite criminal activity, plenty of obfuscation in public interviews, and multiple shady pardons throughout his tenure.
You claimed that in an interview, Trump admitted to firing Comey in order to end the investigation. I am waiting for the evidence. This is a major backtrack on your part.
But you misrepresented the content of the Holt interview and you should admit to it.
This is funny. You assert I have a "team", but in the past you've been unable to identify that team besides vague mentioning of "ethnocentrism". I also don't refer to myself as a "libertarian", so you might want to stop with that line of argument.
My position is that if the Dems had won the election with a loudmouthed candidate who called for his political opponent to be locked up, that likely wouldn't be enough to "sink the presidency" of said Democrat.