US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,005
    Likes Received:
    4,551
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I mean, yeah, we've gone from...

    "Nothing inappropriate happened, it was a perfect call!" to

    "there was no quid pro quo, there was no pressure," to

    "There was a quid pro quo, but big deal, it happens all the time, and there was no pressure" to

    "there was a quid pro quo and there was enough pressure on the Ukrainians that we know they were meeting in early May to discuss what to do about it, but that's fiiiiiine."

    I mean, this is straight up blackmail, at this point. "Investigate my rival, or your military assistance gets cut off while you have an active war raging on your border with Russia, who incidentally was the same nation that helped get me elected."
     
    USMarine75, Adieu, zappatton2 and 6 others like this.
  2. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    157
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    i saw a clip from laura ingram's show where she flat out said attempted bribery is not in the constitution as an impeachable offense (bribery is though). jim jordan was running around foolishly saying the same thing.

    so they are now admitting he tried to commit bribery but was just outed before the plot was successful so everything is fine.


    every defense they trot out gets destroyed almost instantly by new evidence or something dumb trump says or does.
     
    zappatton2 likes this.
  3. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,005
    Likes Received:
    4,551
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Yeah, so about that.
     
    budda, Thaeon, Vyn and 2 others like this.
  4. Thaeon

    Thaeon Cosmic Question Asker

    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    546
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    And last I checked, attempting a crime was still a crime.

    "He tried to launder the money, but was unsuccessful... So he wasn't guilty."

    Guilt isn't predicated on a successful action. Its predicated on committing an act with the intent of a successful action.

    Next thing you know they'll be walking it back to, "Well he didn't mean it."

    As the parent of toddlers, it's like catching a toddler in the act.
     
    tedtan, Ralyks and zappatton2 like this.
  5. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,100
    Likes Received:
    5,458
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    SCOTUS put a hold on the order for House to get Trump's financials on Wednesday with no definite date when they'll hear the case or whether they will at all. I think this is the first SCOTUS action of any kind related directly to the Trump inquiries, no?
     
  6. spudmunkey

    spudmunkey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    2,654
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Location:
    Near San Francisco
    The example i saw on either Seth Meyers or SNL that amused me: "It's like if someone's on a plane and their bomb vest fails to explode, it's not 'Oh well' and then they let you continue on to..." however it went.
     
    narad, Adieu and Thaeon like this.
  7. Thaeon

    Thaeon Cosmic Question Asker

    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    546
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    :lol:

    Is there a way we can find SCOTUS in contempt of court?

    EDIT: Apparently, you can be in contempt of Congress if obstructing their duties. Considering Congress is the appropriate entity to rule on impeachment and the subpoenas related to it, it would seem that this doesn't fall into an area where SCOTUS can rule. Doesn't mean they won't try and even succeed. But I think that would establish poor precedence and potentially overturn a previous ruling of SCOTUS itself.
     
    vilk likes this.
  8. Adieu

    Adieu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Location:
    Moscow
    ....misdemeanors can include spitting on sidewalks and changing your shirt inside a vehicle in some US jurisdictions, though.

    (From browsing the city code of Long Beach, CA in search of something to fight a very bogus parking ticket)
     
  9. Thaeon

    Thaeon Cosmic Question Asker

    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    546
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    In oklahoma it’s a misdemeanor to molest another man’s vehicle.
     
  10. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,963
    Likes Received:
    3,112
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    The SCotUS is seriously (probably) not going to hear a case involved in an impeachment proceeding for a sitting PotUS?! This is insanity.
     
    Thaeon likes this.
  11. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,005
    Likes Received:
    4,551
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Well it's a good thing they have the bribery charge to go on!

    EDIT - reading back, I suspect my post is being misunderstood. I was merely commenting that "bribery" was specifically itemized an impeachable offense, and that our legal system doesn't generally weigh whether or not you were successful in committing a crime or were caught in the act while assessing what statues you may have tried to violate. I.e. - if Trump tried to bribe Ukraine, it's irrelevant if he was sucessful.

    It's also extremely telling how low the bar is falling for Trump. From "perfect phone call" to "well, attempted bribery isn't actually mentioned as grounds for impeachment, only bribery, so that's cool."

    They're almost going to have to hear it on a fairly expidited basis. They may not have set a timeline yet, but I'd honestly be shocked if we don't have dates shortly. This is a kind of big deal, but they may have to do some shuffling of their existing hearing schedule to make it work.
     
  12. spudmunkey

    spudmunkey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    2,654
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Location:
    Near San Francisco
    For what it's worth, "molest" doesn't necessarily mean it's sexual in nature. It can be, though.

     
  13. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    872
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    Well, the GOP indeed had the balls to criticize Lt. Col. Vindman. A purple heart, no less.
     
  14. Adieu

    Adieu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Location:
    Moscow
    They DO realize that THEY hired him, though, right??? Intentionally, knowingly, and almost certainly BECAUSE of his background



    PS I couldn't give two sh!ts about purple hearts or iraq veterans, but if you go around trying to hire a security guy with connections to ukraine, it's pretty damn hypocritical to later suddenly go "omfg he has connections to ukraine" when he's now a liability
     
    Thaeon and vilk like this.
  15. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,100
    Likes Received:
    5,458
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    He also STILL DOES work for them.
     
    USMarine75 and Thaeon like this.
  16. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    157
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    our country needs many more Vindmans and way less trumps and the spineless lemmings who defend him.



    why don't they just subpoena Bolton? he seems like he has a lot he wants to say.
     
  17. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,005
    Likes Received:
    4,551
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Pretty interesting read on impeachment polling:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-think-trump-committed-an-impeachable-offense/

    Biggest takeaway, IMO, is not that 56% of the country thinks Trump did something impeachable (whether or not that should be acted upon is a different story and there's some dissagreement). Rather, 42% of Americans believe no new piece of information could change their mind on whether or not Trump committed impeachable crimes. Of the remainder who considers themselves still persuadable, a disproportionate number currently do not think he's done anything impeachable.

    Basically - as more information of wrongdoing continues to come out, there's a LOT of room for public opinion to shift against Trump.
     
  18. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,005
    Likes Received:
    4,551
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Because he's indicated he won't comply unless the courts order him to, and it'll be a long and protracted court case. It could still happen, but the Democrats likely believe they can build roughly as strong a case without Bolton as with him.
     
  19. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    898
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    They probably will, but Sondland's testimony (and the numerous witnesses corroborating it) is likely to be enough to secure an impeachment.

    EDIT:

    The courts have already ruled that anyone receiving a Congressional subpoena must comply with that subpoena, so I don't think this would be too protracted in Bolton's case.
     
  20. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,100
    Likes Received:
    5,458
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Volker going to be incredibly lucky if he doesn't catch a charge for lying to Congress. Enormously mischaracterized the Bolton/Sondland-Ukraine meeting and tried to plead the "oh yeah, hearing the other people testifying jogged my memory" defense when it didn't gel with what everyone else in the room said.

    I'm no Schiff fan but I thought he nailed Volker pretty good when he recalled his previous accounting that nothing was inappropriate about the meeting and nobody raised concerns, then today Volker said everyone in the room knew it was inappropriate and rolled their eyes when it came up. Tough to walk back details and characterizations you volunteer in vivid detail, then say you barely remember the meeting but you now vividly recount it being exactly the opposite way AFTER the other people in the room offer more detailed, reputable and corroborated accounting.

    Also telling that these were the GOP's witnesses and when it came time for Nunes' questioning, he had to proclaim those weren't the real witnesses they wanted to see. :lol: Also hilarious that he read the same script about the Whistleblower in his opening remarks today and afterward, wanting to cry foul on an investigation based on 'hearsay' and 'second, third and fourth person accounting' of the phone call, when meanwhile they had the people infront of them today who DID hear the phone call in rrealtime and said the same damn thing. Looking desperate.
     
    sleewell and JSanta like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.