1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

2020 US Election

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Nov 13, 2018.

  1. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    new alhambra
    In polls, a majority of people support the claims I laid out. These are things that a majority or plurality of the public accepts. Furthermore, Trump has, unequivocally:

    Told subordinates to break the law
    Undermined a federal investigation via pardon
    Fired the director of Homeland Security for refusing to break the law
    Instructed the CBP commissioner to break the law under the pretense that Trump would pardon him if the authorities came knocking
    Ripped apart the emoluments clause

    These are well established facts, irrespective of what redacted version of the report we have received.
     
    cardgame likes this.
  2. Owen Glyndwr

    Owen Glyndwr La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,586
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Mueller didn't make an explicit conclusion regarding guilt solely because official policy is that he cannot do so. In other words, the choices in his findings can only be: not guilty, or not not guilty. In the summary which we have, Mueller's conclusion is the latter, and from the text of the report, it's very clear - at least in the case of obstruction - that he only withholds from an explicit declaration of outright guilt because of the Justice Department's policy regarding whether a president can be declared guilty. Commentary by third party observers, especially the recently-released letter signed by hundreds of current and former federal prosecutors makes that point abundantly clear: were this report on anybody except a sitting president, this would be an open-and-shut case of obstruction.
     
  3. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,612
    Location:
    Southern Idaho
    no you
     
  4. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    54,477
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Why would anyone know that Bill Clinton was impeached but not know there weren't enough votes to kick him out? Did he die before the procedure ended? :p
     
  5. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,356
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    This is gibberish. Mueller turned official policy on its head.

    The report should have been about 40 pages, dealing exclusively with the Russian indictments handed down last year. The portion dealing with candidate/President Trump was worth more than two pages. More time should have been spent on the FISA warrant fiasco, which was not mentioned at all.

    This report is a political statement from a supposedly non-partisan source. Compare the Starr report that laid out 11 felony counts and the factual basis for each. The factual basis for other potential charges are covered with an insufficient-factual-basis statement. Volume 2 of the Mueller report turns things upside down by assuming the subject is guilty. In USA legal practice the subject is presumed innocent.

    J
     
    Old Hippy likes this.
  6. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,612
    Location:
    Southern Idaho
    Maybe volume 2 assumes guilt because volume 1 found evidence of it.
     
  7. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,356
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    That would imply that Mueller was out to get Trump regardless of the facts. You may be right about that.

    J
     
  8. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,612
    Location:
    Southern Idaho
    >regardless of the facts

    >>FOUND EVIDENCE OF IT
     
  9. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,356
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    That would be covered by a statement that went, "There is insufficient factual basis to refer charges under [statute citation]." Hence, regardless of the facts.

    J
     
  10. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,612
    Location:
    Southern Idaho
    I refer you to Owen's post about Mueller being literally unable to declare guilt.
     
  11. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42,654
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    There are two components: there's not sufficient evidence to indict for collusion (this isn't to say that there is no evidence, merely that it wouldn't get a criminal conviction), and there's no authority to indict for obstruction (this would be Congress's job). The voters should be wary of re-electing someone that would try to collude to destroy the democracy, but they won't be.
     
  12. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,356
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    Why? I refer you to the rebuttal.

    Mueller's job was to submit a (theoretically confidential) report on whether any criminal case could be prosecuted. He found squat. The rest is noise.

    It never says that someone is exonerated. That would almost as silly as saying someone wasn't, about which I refer you to the last four words of the report. those four words prove that this whole report is coloring outside the lines.

    In any event, if there were a case to be made for obstruction, Mueller would have simply cited the statutory language and the facts proving the violation. Refer to the eleven felony counts in the Starr report. Obstruction is one of them.

    J
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
  13. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    Well said. I mean sure, I don't think impeachment is a zero risk move. Obviously there are some risks to it, so I at least understand where the anti- group is coming from.

    But the facts are on the side of impeachment. The law is on the side of impeachment. And perhaps most importantly - the Mueller report itself signals that Mueller uncovered evidence of other Trump crimes beyond the scope of his investigation. So there is plenty yet to be brought before the public as part of this process.

    So while there are risks, they are risks worth taking because they seem to be low. And the sooner they act, the lower the risk becomes that what happens interferes with the 2020 elections. If you get this done before the primaries are underway in earnest, any potential backlash will be long gone by next November.

    The "public doesn't care about Russia/Trump crimes" cuts both ways. It means that maybe you don't convince people Trump needs to be removed from office, but it also means people will forget about it as soon as it's finished.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  14. rah

    rah Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,116
    Location:
    Chicago
    If part of the risk is it helping Trump win in 2020, and there's no way the senate will impeach, I would say the risk is too high. IMO
     
  15. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    That's not part of the risk.
     
  16. rah

    rah Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,116
    Location:
    Chicago
    In your opinion. There is no fact here. I believe the opposite. I would prefer not to be proven correct.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  17. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,356
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    Venturing back to the subject of the thread, UVa has a new article on the House. It's a collection of small comments rather than build up to a conclusion. Tis is one such comment (emphasis in the original)

    Republicans need to flip at least 18 House seats to win the chamber. With 31 Democrats in Trump-won seats, Republicans could win the House back just by sweeping all the Democratic House districts where Trump won by three points or more in 2018. That’s easier said than done. For one thing, we could imagine Trump’s performance weakening in some of these districts because they cover some affluent, highly-educated suburban areas that are trending away from Republicans. Also, and to the extent incumbency matters, Democrats have strong officeholders in some of these districts. Still, the districts are there for the Republicans to retake the House, at least on paper.

    Other things to note is that it is much too early to take polling as predictive. This does not mean it's useless, rather that it is likely to change and may change dramatically. That said, things are about where they were two years ago. So, if the Republicans are going to retake the House, they have a hill to climb.
    http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-the-house/

    I would put that at near certainty. They have already played that game and lost. With his win against Mueller and the state of the economy, Trump is going to be near unbeatable anyway. If they pursue impeachment it means they ran out of ideas.

    J
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  18. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    Failed impeachment did not prevent the Republican from winning the White House in 2000, and one can pretty easily argue, as @Sommerswerd did, that impeachment helped Republicans win in 2000.

    Impeachment proceedings against Nixon caused him to resign and gave Democrats a huge midterm boost in '74, and the presidency in '76.

    Those are facts. Both recent impeachments preceded the party out of the White House winning the next presidential election. So, if you want to go with a factual argument, there it is. Hell, if you want to go back to the first impeachment, the Republicans failed to convict Andrew Johnson and then won the next presidential election. The impeachers are 3-3, and 2-2 when failing to convict.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  19. rah

    rah Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,116
    Location:
    Chicago
    Past facts don't prove future possibilities. It's still just an opinion. Fact.
     
  20. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    But you said there were no facts here, when there are several relevant facts, all of which support my opinion, none of which support yours. Feel free to handwave that away, but the facts are highly relevant to what is more likely to be correct.

    What facts do you have which lead you to conclude that impeachment would help Trump get re-elected?
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.

Share This Page