President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39266
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: trying to get over

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 29 May 2019, 16:07

I think he's saying "I would have charged Trump but I'm not allowed to"
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43496
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 29 May 2019, 16:25

Count Machuki wrote:I think he's saying "I would have charged Trump but I'm not allowed to"


Is that not what the report says!? :lol:
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39266
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: trying to get over

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 29 May 2019, 17:24

Still Baron wrote:
Count Machuki wrote:I think he's saying "I would have charged Trump but I'm not allowed to"


Is that not what the report says!? :lol:


Right? :roll:

He should have added in some broad winks and meaningful shrugs.

I do wonder if the Justice Department can or will ever revise the whole "The President is above the law" policy.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43496
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 29 May 2019, 17:42

A pedant notes that the president is not above the law because he or she is subject to impeachment! ;)
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53331
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 29 May 2019, 21:53

Was this just a sly wink to the House Judiciary Committee that he's now a private citizen so feel free to sharpen the subpoena pencils and he'll come in and spill the beans behind closed doors as a private citizen?

Eh, probably not.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53331
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 29 May 2019, 22:54

:roll:

But now there's been some sort of addendum to or clarification of Mueller's earlier remarks, which seem to be saying they didn't even think about whether the president committed crimes because they weren't allowed to.

"[The policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted] was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime."

Which is NOT saying "We made up our minds, but we're not allowed to say what we thought."

I guess what it comes down to is "We decided ahead of time we would not consider whether the president committed crimes. And since we didn't consider it, we (logically) didn't reach a conclusion."

Except that whether the president committed crimes was in fact within Mueller's purview.

*confused*

What exactly was the point of this addendum? Too clever by half, if you ask me.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12952
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 30 May 2019, 00:00

I think they should subpoena him.
just having him on TV for 10 minutes blew away all this "witch hunt" horseshit.
imagine what a couple of hours could do.

Barr and Trump look sleazier and slimier each and every time somebody takes their pathetic argument by the horns.
Congress should do it - take them by the horns. impeachment or not - people need to hear how disconnected Team Trump is from Planet Earth in this.

the more they back this shit up the crazier they look.
Björk says we all need to get off Facebook and go for a walk.
https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/mbva ... q097SIBlf4

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43496
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 30 May 2019, 00:18

Snarfyguy wrote::roll:

But now there's been some sort of addendum to or clarification of Mueller's earlier remarks, which seem to be saying they didn't even think about whether the president committed crimes because they weren't allowed to.

"[The policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted] was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime."

Which is NOT saying "We made up our minds, but we're not allowed to say what we thought."

I guess what it comes down to is "We decided ahead of time we would not consider whether the president committed crimes. And since we didn't consider it, we (logically) didn't reach a conclusion."

Except that whether the president committed crimes was in fact within Mueller's purview.

*confused*

What exactly was the point of this addendum? Too clever by half, if you ask me.


Whether there was obstruction of justice was within the purview. They never considered charging the President, but they also said they could not exonerate him, because if they could’ve, they would’ve. It is abundantly clear that the report is a roadmap to impeachment and there is plenty of juice there to support an impeachment and a conviction. That is the remedy.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39266
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: trying to get over

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 30 May 2019, 00:23

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/do-your-fucking-job

Hey, Congress.

HEY.

LISTEN TO ME. ALL OF YOU.

I know this is inconvenient. I know what I’m about to tell you to do is hard, and complicated, and may not even, in the end, actually produce results. But I promise you, it’s never been more important to do what needs to be done. Do what, you ask?

DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.

DO IT. JUST TRY IT. DIP YOUR FUCKING TOES IN, AND LET US ALL KNOW HOW THE WATERS FEEL. WHAT’S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN? ARE YOU GOING TO GET ASKED TOUGH QUESTIONS AT A TOWN HALL? IS CHUCK TODD GOING TO QUIZ YOU WITH CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING THIS? IS FOX NEWS GOING TO DECLARE A FATWA AGAINST YOU?

I’m sorry. I, in no way, mean to be aggressive or abrasive or imply that there are not enormous consequences to whatever happens next. This is a historical decision, no doubt, but it’s almost like HE’S THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUST DOING CRIMES WHILE YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT CIVILITY.

JUST DO IT. WE’RE TIRED OF BEGGING. WE’RE EXHAUSTED OF CONNECTING THESE DOTS FOR YOU LIKE YOU ARE CHILDREN AT AN APPLEBEE’S COMPLETING GAMES ON THE MENU WITH CRAYONS. DO WHAT ALL OF US, WHETHER WE’RE TEACHERS, OR MUNICIPAL WORKERS, OR DOCTORS, OR LAWYERS DO EVERY SINGLE DAY. WE DO OUR JOBS. WE HAVE TO, FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN. SO SHOW AN OUNCE OF FUCKING RESPECT FOR US, AND DO YOUR FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL JOB.

Again, I apologize if I lack decorum here. It’s been a tough three years. We’ve seen real people demonized and driven into the shadows. We’ve seen children hunted, facing lives irrevocably damaged. We’ve seen bad things get worse, and bad people live their worst lives without consequence. So I don’t mean to sound accusatory, but IT’S TIME YOU GET OFF OF YOUR ASSES AND FUCKING DO IT.

I DARE YOU. WE DARE YOU. IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? A GAME OF CHICKEN, AND YOU’LL ONLY DO IT UNLESS WE’RE ABOUT TO BULLDOZE THE WHITE HOUSE AND REPLACE IT WITH A SHITTY GOLF CLUB? JUST DO IT. PRETEND LIKE YOU CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND YOUR ROLE IN IT. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO START. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO SHOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUFFERING. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO BEGIN RECTIFYING YOUR MISTAKES. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO STEP UP AND SAVE OUR REPUBLIC.

Just do your fucking job.

Because if not.

We’ll find other people who will.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53331
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 30 May 2019, 04:19

Still Baron wrote:
Snarfyguy wrote::roll:

But now there's been some sort of addendum to or clarification of Mueller's earlier remarks, which seem to be saying they didn't even think about whether the president committed crimes because they weren't allowed to.

"[The policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted] was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime."

Which is NOT saying "We made up our minds, but we're not allowed to say what we thought."

I guess what it comes down to is "We decided ahead of time we would not consider whether the president committed crimes. And since we didn't consider it, we (logically) didn't reach a conclusion."

Except that whether the president committed crimes was in fact within Mueller's purview.

*confused*

What exactly was the point of this addendum? Too clever by half, if you ask me.


Whether there was obstruction of justice was within the purview. They never considered charging the President, but they also said they could not exonerate him, because if they could’ve, they would’ve. It is abundantly clear that the report is a roadmap to impeachment and there is plenty of juice there to support an impeachment and a conviction. That is the remedy.

I get the "roadmap to impeachment" stuff, I'm just having trouble parsing Mueller's statements.

It seems to me he could have said he found evidence of presidential crimes (which, since he didn't exonerate DJT, I assume he did) but was bound by DOJ policy not to pursue indictments for those crimes, except he didn't say that for fear of being seen as "partisan" or "political," which strikes me as a cop-out.

He had to have known that, absent a pronouncement of finding evidence of crimes, Trump's AG was going to effectively misrepresent the report's findings to Congress and the public, which rather blunts its intent.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43496
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 30 May 2019, 04:30

I don’t think he wanted to be in a position of being a law enforcement officer making any specific accusation at all. He’s either going to charge the President or he isn’t and he doesn’t want to put his thumb on the scales of impeachment.

I think.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53331
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 30 May 2019, 04:43

Okay, I get it.

I don't like it.

You know, he was mandated to pursue, among other things, "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," which would presumably include obstruction of justice and I'm going to assume that part of an "investigation" is disclosure of its findings (even if no indictment is pursued) and letting the chips fall where they may, but I guess I forgot he's just a fancy right-wing cop.

Failing to state what I surmise to be his conclusions is just putting his thumb on the other tray of the scale.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23881
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 31 May 2019, 07:58

Still Baron wrote:A pedant notes that the president is not above the law because he or she is subject to impeachment! ;)


Another pedant counters, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. So a President is apparently above the law, but not above politics.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43496
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 31 May 2019, 12:24

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Still Baron wrote:A pedant notes that the president is not above the law because he or she is subject to impeachment! ;)


Another pedant counters, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. So a President is apparently above the law, but not above politics.


It is a legal remedy provided by a legal document that also happens to be the highest law in the land. Its contours are exactly the same as classic criminal process—inquiry into formal charges by a grand jury and trial by a jury presided over by a judicial officer. All enforcement of the law is subject to politics. That it is left to politicians to enforce the law does not make the President “above the law.”
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43496
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 31 May 2019, 12:30

Betcha anything that somewhere on this thread I’ve said it’s political not legal.

:lol: :lol:
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23881
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 31 May 2019, 14:57

I’m not even going to bother looking.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2370
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Hepcat » 01 Jun 2019, 21:10

Still Baron wrote:Betcha anything that somewhere on this thread I’ve said it’s political not legal.


Precisely. The whole thing's been political from the start. The Democrats have from the day after the election (Remember the riots?) been unwilling to accept that they nominated such a horrible candidate and ran such an awful campaign that Donald Trump with all his flaws got the victory.

One thing's for sure now. There will be calls to impeach every future President within our lifetimes. Regardless of how they personally feel about Donald Trump, Republicans won't forgive and forget. Any President who makes the customary "It's now time to unify the nation" speech after the election will be laughed off the podium.
Last edited by Hepcat on 01 Jun 2019, 21:28, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2370
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Hepcat » 01 Jun 2019, 21:24

Count Machuki wrote:I do wonder if the Justice Department can or will ever revise the whole "The President is above the law" policy.


Unfortunately all legislators are above the law. Don't believe me? Try suing any of the buggers for damages whenever they pass a new law taking money out of your pocketbook. No, Congress is above all these class action suits about which you read.

The only "remedy" is of course the next election. But in the case of all the Democrats calling for the impeachment of the latest buffoon sitting in the White House, they're not content with that remedy. The electorate you see has a perverse habit of voting for the other guy half the time. I mean what if they pick the other guy again? Very annoying to be sure.

Meanwhile the size of the Government keeps growing and growing. Notice that it's the one election promise Trump's done nothing about. He promised to "drain the swamp", but the quagmire of Government just keeps getting deeper and wider. It is to scream.
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
mentalist (slight return)
under mi sensi
Posts: 14546
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 10:54
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby mentalist (slight return) » 02 Jun 2019, 07:59

Pelosi's playing some strategic long game no doubt, and she has earned the right to call the shots. But if they don't try and impeach Trump, then how can anyone realistically try and impeach a US president in the future? A question not a statement.
king of the divan

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23881
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 02 Jun 2019, 19:29

mentalist (slight return) wrote:Pelosi's playing some strategic long game no doubt, and she has earned the right to call the shots. But if they don't try and impeach Trump, then how can anyone realistically try and impeach a US president in the future? A question not a statement.


There’s an entirely realistic possibility that McConnell will scuttle an impeachment, either by not taking it up at all, or by not allowing meaningful hearings to occur. Much like the Merrick Garland fiasco, the Senate has a lot of latitude in how it decides to handle an impeachment once the House initiates one.

I think Pelosi knows this, and she knows Mitch McConnell. From a game theory perspective, it makes more sense to draw all of this out, so that McConnell has to do all of that in the context of an election campaign, if he’s going to do it. If we impeach now, it’s just another forgotten outrage in the rear view mirror when it comes time for voting decisions.
Last edited by Davey the Fat Boy on 03 Jun 2019, 14:43, edited 1 time in total.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image