Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Rich

US Politics

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, do or die said:

But Trump had already stated that no payments were made, then that yes, payments were made, but he knew nothing about it.  Even though Cohen (his attack dog and legal fixer for a decade) arranged them....in between making deals with the National Enquirer to catch and kill a variety of embarrassing and unflattering stories about Trump.  

If, at this stage.... you can take Trump`s word on this matter as gospel.....more power to you.
 

I agree he's a lying slime ball but are they going to be able to charge him with breaking any laws.....

The Teflon Don was called that for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, pigseye said:

I agree he's a lying slime ball but are they going to be able to charge him with breaking any laws.....

The Teflon Don was called that for a reason. 

You're not exactly placing a tough bet when the DOJ has already said Trump cannot be indicted while President.  Any one waiting for Mueller's report to come out with NO charges against Trump as evidence he's innocent is being disingenuous.  The real shocker would be if they DID indict Trump or even have a sealed indictment.  

The likely outcome is a damning Mueller report that has no impact on Trump directly other then being of evidentary value in the House when they impeach.  And I'd say the odds are pretty good Trump is eventually impeached.  Whether the evidence will exist enough to convince the Senate to convict is the more uphill battle.  

That's the politics.  In all likelihood, the SDNY will have some chickens coming home to roost at the Trump org eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The likely outcome is a damning Mueller report that has no impact on Trump directly other then being of evidentary value in the House when they impeach.  And I'd say the odds are pretty good Trump is eventually impeached.  Whether the evidence will exist enough to convince the Senate to convict is the more uphill battle.  

Serious question then, if not the Mueller Report, what will he be impeached for? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pigseye said:

Serious question then, if not the Mueller Report, what will he be impeached for? 

Well he can't be impeached for "the Mueller report".  That's not a charge.  And ofcourse, you have speculation that the AG (at Trump's behest) might try to prevent Congress from seeing the report.  So if the report contained damning evidence against Trump (collusion/conspiracy, fraud, obstruction etc) but Congress isn't allowed to see it, they can't do anything based on that report.

Congress has a constitutional obligation to be a check on the powers of the President.  What you see them doing now is requesting items that have already been turned over to the Special Counsel.  I assume they are doing that because there is no reason for anyone to refuse to share items with the House that they've already turned over to Mueller.  The only reason they would is because they the AG is going to run interference to keep the report away from Congress.  

Let's also be honest.  Impeachment is a political scenario and it sinks or swims on public sentiment.  If the public sours even more on Trump, especially conservatives, it becomes a lot easier.  Clinton had become very popular by the time his impeachment made it to the Senate and it wasnt going to happen.  But if the WH can keep the Mueller report from being made public, especially if its damning, the goal is to help stop public sentiment from turning on the President.

The Mueller report isnt about impeachment.  Congress might use it for that purpose.  But its up to Congress to decide on impeachment, not Mueller.  Unless Mueller wants to test the DOJ policy on indicting the President, the report wont do anything to Trump and never would have...unless it's 1) public & 2) sent to Congress.  It should be on both, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

It was just a comparison. 

An interesting comparison from a Trump supporter considering as Teflon as Gotti was, he was a murderer and mob boss who eventually died in prison.  Trump should hope to not be as teflon as that Don...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump would have to be charged with a crime before we even get into the argument of whether or not he can be indicted. Mueller can charge him with obstruction and/or perjury, at least those seem to be the likely candidates at this point (hello Bill Clinton).

Without those charges from Mueller, I don't see how the Dems even proceed with impeachment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

An interesting comparison from a Trump supporter considering as Teflon as Gotti was, he was a murderer and mob boss who eventually died in prison.  Trump should hope to not be as teflon as that Don...

Somebody on here called Trump 'a mob boss' so the comparison seemed fitting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Trump would have to be charged with a crime before we even get into the argument of whether or not he can be indicted. Mueller can charge him with obstruction and/or perjury, at least those seem to be the likely candidates at this point (hello Bill Clinton).

Without those charges from Mueller, I don't see how the Dems even proceed with impeachment.  

Mueller can't charge him.  Do you mean "accuse" as in detail in his report ways in which he belies Trump did X?  I doubt Mueller is going to touch any part of whether Trump should be charged (indicted).  

Let's assume Trump is guilty of various things within the scope of the Mueller report and that Mueller does detail those findings with evidence.  He submits that to the AG who does whatever he wants with it.  I would doubt that Mueller would even go as far as saying "this office recommends indicting Trump for....X"  I think he'd simply lay out the case and not give an opinion on that because he knows the DOJ policy.

The special counsel is not an arm of Congress.  So no matter what Meueller does or doesnt say, Congress is free (in fact obligated) to do their own work in determine whether the President should be impeached.  Certainly, if Mueller details criminal wrong doing and its made public or at the least provided to Congress, they will use that for impeachment.  Why wouldn't they?  The investigative work is already done.

But if Mueller falls short of accusing Trump with evidence, it doesnt stop the House from considering impeachment based on their own investigations.  Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator in campaign finance violations.  His own words and actions in terms of firing Comey suggest a pretty clear effort to obstruct the FBI investigating his ties with Russia.  

I know that you're preemptively setting up a scenario where the Mueller report is either hidden or does not directly implicate the President in Russia collusion as the end all/be all of this, but it really isn't.  

You've got the Mueller probe PLUS the SDNY investigations.  Neither of those two bodies can indict or impeach the President.  Only Congress can impeach.  Effectively, only Congress can hold Trump accountable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilhan Omar: Obama’s a ‘pretty face’ who got ‘away with murder’

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion.

She cited the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.

“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said.

“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

The explosive comments about a man lionized by Democrats were only the latest in a series of incendiary statements that have put the national spotlight on Omar, a Somali-American Muslim who spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya after her family fled the violence in their homeland.

In February, her second month in office, Omar responded to a tweet about House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy’s threats to punish her and another congresswoman for criticizing Israel.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she tweeted, a line from a Puff Daddy song about $100 bills.

Critics said Omar was perpetuating a hateful trope about Jewish Americans and money.

She recently got into another hot mess after another tweet was slammed by some as anti-Semitic.

The ensuing firestorm rattled the Democratic House majority and spurred days of recriminations and tense negotiations that led to the compromise package condemning bigotry that sailed through the House on Thursday, with only 23 Republicans voting against it.

The party’s leftist wing, led by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Omar was being singled out when others at the highest levels of government had said things that were worse and escaped censure.

More moderate Dems, including Jewish lawmakers such as New York’s Eliot Engle, wanted the resolution to focus only on anti-Semitism as a direct response to Omar’s comment, which questioned the loyalty of politicians who accept donations from pro-Israel PACs and organizations.

Ultimately, after days of chaos and acrimony, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to unite her caucus — and box in a big majority of Republicans — to back the compromise.

And Omar — along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan the first Muslim women in Congress — said she’s willing to keep speaking out and be a Republican punching bag if it helps advance her agenda, a prospect that likely makes many of her fellow Democrats cringe.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-obamas-a-pretty-face-who-got-away-with-murder/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Mueller can't charge him.  Do you mean "accuse" as in detail in his report ways in which he belies Trump did X?  I doubt Mueller is going to touch any part of whether Trump should be charged (indicted).  

Let's assume Trump is guilty of various things within the scope of the Mueller report and that Mueller does detail those findings with evidence.  He submits that to the AG who does whatever he wants with it.  I would doubt that Mueller would even go as far as saying "this office recommends indicting Trump for....X"  I think he'd simply lay out the case and not give an opinion on that because he knows the DOJ policy.

The special counsel is not an arm of Congress.  So no matter what Meueller does or doesnt say, Congress is free (in fact obligated) to do their own work in determine whether the President should be impeached.  Certainly, if Mueller details criminal wrong doing and its made public or at the least provided to Congress, they will use that for impeachment.  Why wouldn't they?  The investigative work is already done.

But if Mueller falls short of accusing Trump with evidence, it doesnt stop the House from considering impeachment based on their own investigations.  Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator in campaign finance violations.  His own words and actions in terms of firing Comey suggest a pretty clear effort to obstruct the FBI investigating his ties with Russia.  

I know that you're preemptively setting up a scenario where the Mueller report is either hidden or does not directly implicate the President in Russia collusion as the end all/be all of this, but it really isn't.  

You've got the Mueller probe PLUS the SDNY investigations.  Neither of those two bodies can indict or impeach the President.  Only Congress can impeach.  Effectively, only Congress can hold Trump accountable.  

What I'm saying is that Congress can not impeach just for political reasons, there has to be legal justification and if Mueller doesn't find any legal justification ie. Trump committing crimes (indictment or not) then the whole impeachment process will just look politically motivated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Ilhan Omar: Obama’s a ‘pretty face’ who got ‘away with murder’

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion.

She cited the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.

“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said.

“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

The explosive comments about a man lionized by Democrats were only the latest in a series of incendiary statements that have put the national spotlight on Omar, a Somali-American Muslim who spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya after her family fled the violence in their homeland.

In February, her second month in office, Omar responded to a tweet about House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy’s threats to punish her and another congresswoman for criticizing Israel.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she tweeted, a line from a Puff Daddy song about $100 bills.

Critics said Omar was perpetuating a hateful trope about Jewish Americans and money.

She recently got into another hot mess after another tweet was slammed by some as anti-Semitic.

The ensuing firestorm rattled the Democratic House majority and spurred days of recriminations and tense negotiations that led to the compromise package condemning bigotry that sailed through the House on Thursday, with only 23 Republicans voting against it.

The party’s leftist wing, led by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Omar was being singled out when others at the highest levels of government had said things that were worse and escaped censure.

More moderate Dems, including Jewish lawmakers such as New York’s Eliot Engle, wanted the resolution to focus only on anti-Semitism as a direct response to Omar’s comment, which questioned the loyalty of politicians who accept donations from pro-Israel PACs and organizations.

Ultimately, after days of chaos and acrimony, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to unite her caucus — and box in a big majority of Republicans — to back the compromise.

And Omar — along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan the first Muslim women in Congress — said she’s willing to keep speaking out and be a Republican punching bag if it helps advance her agenda, a prospect that likely makes many of her fellow Democrats cringe.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-obamas-a-pretty-face-who-got-away-with-murder/

Is this the Dems attempt at draining the swamp? All these newbie congress people with their radical ideas?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Is this the Dems attempt at draining the swamp? All these newbie congress people with their radical ideas?  

You can't criticize Israel.

Having said that they are an apartheid state the way they treat some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

You can't criticize Israel.

Having said that they are an apartheid state the way they treat some people.

Nothing wrong with criticizing Israel but making anti-Semitic tweets and calling Obama and Trump the same is a bit over the top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pigseye said:

Is this the Dems attempt at draining the swamp? All these newbie congress people with their radical ideas?  

Why are you afraid of new ideas or change? Reality in Politics especially, its an old white boys club... They want to be in charge, the old white man.. The straight white male,  they are afraid of changes, afraid of the new and different but why? Are they afraid some new ideas actually might work? Cuz if u are being honest with politics.. Its the same ideas over and over from the same straight white male.. Time for change. Other people have good ideas too.. The idea behind a govt is to work for the ppl . the straight white male? Works for himself. That's a problem. Change is good. 

The avg straight white male politician will take 1 million dollars over saving 1 million ppl 1 million dollars.. This is not what Govt is supposed to be

Stop putting them in to dems or Republicans category.. I know crazy but its ok to like a republican idea but also like a dem idea too on something else. Not 1 person has all the answers.. The idea of govt is 2 work as 1 for the ppl... 

Be nice if they did that.. But Nope it's US vs THEM. 

Edited by Goalie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Goalie said:

Why are you afraid of new ideas or change? Reality in Politics especially, its an old white boys club... They want to be in charge, the old white man.. The straight white male,  they are afraid of changes, afraid of the new and different but why? Are they afraid some new ideas actually might work? Cuz if u are being honest with politics.. Its the same ideas over and over from the same straight white male.. Time for change. Other people have good ideas too.. The idea behind a govt is to work for the ppl . the straight white male? Works for himself. That's a problem. Change is good. 

The avg straight white male politician will take 1 million dollars over saving 1 million ppl 1 million dollars.. This is not what Govt is supposed to be

Stop putting them in to dems or Republicans category.. I know crazy but its ok to like a republican idea but also like a dem idea too on something else. Not 1 person has all the answers.. The idea of govt is 2 work as 1 for the ppl... 

Be nice if they did that.. But Nope it's US vs THEM. 

I see, it's just not okay to like the ideas of straight white old guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Goalie said:

Democrats 2020: We aren't Nazis.. We dont think rape is ok.. We aren't Donald Trump. 

Well they are anti-Semites like the Nazis were and we have Al Franken, Stephen Bittel, Steve Lebsock, Paul Rosenthal, Dan Schoen, Tony Mendoza, Raul Bocenegra…...I'm sure there are more.

If anything, it's you who are perpetuating the Us v Them mentality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pigseye said:

Well they (Democrats) are anti-Semites like the Nazis were

 

I nominate the quoted statement for most absurd post in the history of this site. EDIT..... and Riderfans.org.

 

"absurd"  :  Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous; silly. 

 

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

I nominate the quoted statement for most absurd post in the history of this site.

 

"absurd"  :  Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous; silly. 

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/ilhan-omar-anti-semitic-remarks-aipac

I see you conveniently left out the part about the Democrats being sexual predators too, but I suppose that is absurd as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...