An Argument for Impeachment That Hasn't Gotten Much Discussion

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You really don't think the president's reluctance to admit the Russians interfered in our past election - and plan to do so in the next - is not worthy of discussion Salty?

Or do you just agree with Trump - that it didn't happen - and all of our intelligence agencies are just wrong?

I do not think him being impeached over what he says about it is worthy of discussion.

I believe they meddled and have always meddled in elections. I do not believe it affected the outcome of the election one iota. I also believe it has been blown way out of proportion and like most people I am tired hearing about it. 

[homersapien 11,367]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

I do not think him being impeached over what he says about it is worthy of discussion.

I believe they meddled and have always meddled in elections. I do not believe it affected the outcome of the election one iota. I also believe it has been blown way out of proportion and like most people I am tired hearing about it. 

1. Do you think Russian -  or other foreign -  involvement in our election represents a threat to our democracy and thus our country?

2. Do you think one of the POTUS's primary responsibilities is to protect the country from threats?

3. What evidence do you have that it didn't affect the election (that was determined by less than 80k votes)?

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

1. Do you think Russian -  or other foreign -  involvement in our election represents a threat to our democracy and thus our country?

2. Do you think one of the POTUS's primary responsibilities is to protect the country from threats?

3. What evidence do you have that it didn't affect the election (that was determined by less than 80k votes)?

The Russians nor anyone have ever affected the outcome our elections so I have never considered any of your questions. We would have never heard one damn word about so called " Russian Interference' had Hillary won the election. You are a very smart man and get that Brother Homer. 

[toddc 13,194]

Trump knows exactly what happened, but he’s trolling all the conspiracy libs and media just to get them all in a tizzy over nothing, like he always does. I don’t know when they’ll ever catch on .

[McLoofus 35,182]

24 minutes ago, toddc said:

Trump knows exactly what happened, but he’s trolling all the conspiracy libs and media just to get them all in a tizzy over nothing, like he always does. I don’t know when they’ll ever catch on .

That almost comes across as admiration. 

 

[toddc 13,194]

Just now, McLoofus said:

That almost comes across as admiration. 

 

Huh? Just my opinion 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, toddc said:

Huh? Just my opinion 

Apologies. It sounded to me as though your take on trump was a positive one but I'm glad to know that I was wrong. 

[toddc 13,194]

Just now, McLoofus said:

Apologies. It sounded to me as though your take on trump was a positive one but I'm glad to know that I was wrong. 

Not positive or negative, just an observation. 

[homersapien 11,367]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

The Russians nor anyone have ever affected the outcome our elections so I have never considered any of your questions. We would have never heard one damn word about so called " Russian Interference' had Hillary won the election. You are a very smart man and get that Brother Homer. 

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever they didn't affect the election. 

Just as I have no evidence they did.  But given the closeness of the election and the magnitude of their effort, it is clearly possible they could have, which is of course the point.

Yet Trump refuses to admit even admit they tried (and we all know why).  And he is certainly not pushing measures to prevent them from trying in 2020.  That's a clear dereliction of one of his main duties.

As for Hillary winning, you may be right, although with the obsession the right has with Hillary, I kind of doubt it.  I am sure there would have been major efforts to imply she actually benefited from the Russians trying to help Trump in a 'reverse psychology' sort of way.

And there are plenty of people who - even though they may have been glad Hillary won - would have raised concerns about Russian involvement in our election, so the "never heard one word" claim is a little extreme. 

Regardless such speculation is totally beside the point.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

54 minutes ago, toddc said:

Trump knows exactly what happened, but he’s trolling all the conspiracy libs and media just to get them all in a tizzy over nothing, like he always does. I don’t know when they’ll ever catch on .

Meanwhile doing nothing to ensure it doesn't happen again.

That's an impeachable offense.

[toddc 13,194]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Meanwhile doing nothing to ensure it doesn't happen again.

That's an impeachable offense.

That’s ridiculous, there are things going on behind the scenes that aren’t in the mainstream. There are also things going on that are.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Meanwhile doing nothing to ensure it doesn't happen again.

That's an impeachable offense.

Isn’t being a white nationalist an impeachable offense?  How about causing a mass shooting with your language; is that an impeachable offense?  Get with it, man. I can’t believe someone can’t prove what is being said by the left in a court of law.  Get this guy out of office today or we’ll have another mass shooting on our hands.

When does all this bravado cross the line to slander?

[homersapien 11,367]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Isn’t being a white nationalist an impeachable offense?  How about causing a mass shooting with your language; is that an impeachable offense?  Get with it, man. I can’t believe someone can’t prove what is being said by the left in a court of law.  Get this guy out of office today or we’ll have another mass shooting on our hands.

When does all this bravado cross the line to slander?

Pretty much.  Those are both good reasons for impeachment.

I didn't really understand the rest of your post.

[homersapien 11,367]

7 minutes ago, toddc said:

That’s ridiculous, there are things going on behind the scenes that aren’t in the mainstream. There are also things going on that are.

Well, I don't know about that.  What I do know is what Trump has said about the subject.

He continually indicates it didn't happen.  So I am skeptical that anything meaningful is "going on behind the scenes", or if it is, it's without Trump's agreement or even knowledge.

[toddc 13,194]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Pretty much.  Those are both good reasons for impeachment.

I didn't really understand the rest of your post.

Sarcasm 

[toddc 13,194]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, I don't know about that.  What I do know is what Trump has said about the subject.

He continually indicates it didn't happen.  So I am skeptical that anything meaningful is "going on behind the scenes", or if it is, it's without Trump's agreement or even knowledge.

It’s seems very disingenuous to say this. Of course there are things going on and Trump knows about it and is pushing for it. You know this though so I’m done.

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What I do know is what Trump has said about the subject.

When have you believed anything he said? Would not really matter what he said in your world would it?

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Pretty much.  Those are both good reasons for impeachment.

I didn't really understand the rest of your post.

So if you really believe the rhetoric being said, why not call for impeachment right now?  Or is it because the Dems would be laughed at when proof had to be presented?  Yes it was satire, the Dems don’t have any tangible evidence Trump is racist much less a white nationalist. 

The resistance has served it’s purpose.  It has divided this country along political/racial lines like it has never been done before. I will admit Trump has helped along the way.

[homersapien 11,367]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

When have you believed anything he said? Would not really matter what he said in your world would it?

It's hard to tell what he actually believes - as your point alludes, he's a compulsive liar.

But it's obvious  he makes divisive tweets and statements very deliberately.  That's the moral equivalent of sincerity in such beliefs.

Is there really any doubt in your mind that he was being sincere in using the term "s*** hole countries"?

[homersapien 11,367]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So if you really believe the rhetoric being said, why not call for impeachment right now?  Or is it because the Dems would be laughed at when proof had to be presented?  Yes it was satire, the Dems don’t have any tangible evidence Trump is racist much less a white nationalist. 

The resistance has served it’s purpose.  It has divided this country along political/racial lines like it has never been done before. I will admit Trump has helped along the way.

Laughed at by Republicans maybe.  They lost their shame long ago.

Trump should be impeached based on his failure to acknowledge Russia's direct attack on our country and lack of aggressive action to prevent it in the future. 

Then there's the obstruction business which Mueller chose to pass to Congress. In fact he is subject to criminal trial for obstruction after he loses in 2020, when he no longer has the office to protect him.

[auburn41 492]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Then there's the obstruction business which Mueller chose to pass to Congress. In fact he is subject to criminal trial for obstruction after he loses in 2020, when he no longer has the office to protect him.

The Office Of Legal Council's ruling about indicting a sitting President did not affect Mueller's decision.  As has happened twice before he corrected his incorrect statement in that regard......

 

The Reversed “Gotcha” Moment of Mueller’s Testimony Is a Metaphor for the Whole Thing

The special counsel wasn’t trying to do anything but tell his questioners that he stood by his report.

 

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

JULY 24, 2019 2:34 PM

 

Maybe it shouldn’t surprise us that the moment in Robert Mueller’s House Judiciary Committee testimony Wednesday morning that may have meant everything could also have meant nothing, and later in the afternoon, Mueller clarified that he had not in fact intended to say what he had been initially interpreted to be saying. The moment in question came in the morning as Mueller testified before the House Judiciary Committee. In response to Rep. Ted Lieu, D-C.A., asking why he didn’t indict Donald Trump for the various obstructive acts he laid out in Volume II of the Mueller report, Mueller said that he didn’t indict because he couldn’t. Here is the exchange:

 

Lieu: I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?

Mueller: That is correct.

This question—why Mueller didn’t indict—has dominated speculation over the special counsel’s actions and his testimony today. In the report itself and in subsequent statements, Mueller has claimed that a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion definitively prohibits him from charging a sitting president with a federal crime. It’s a point that he and William Barr have offered differing opinions on: In May, Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mueller “reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

This morning’s short colloquy between Lieu and Mueller seemed to confirm the perception that the main reason for a lack of indictment was Mueller’s understanding of this OLC opinion and the fact that it precluded indictment. Liberal Twitter assumed this was the great “gotcha” moment of the hearing. Greg Sargent, at the Washington Post, tweeted, “Whoa!” Headlines suggested this was the moment Democrats were waiting for. Preet Bharara tweeted that the answer was “very very close to Mueller saying that but for the OLC memo, Trump would have been indicted.” In the break between hearings, several Democratic representatives also emphasized this particular point. In an interview with a reporter, Rep. Steve Cohen said: “Mr. Mueller, an American hero, made clear that any other person who did the acts that Trump did would have been indicted for obstruction of justice, but for a policy of the Justice Department that you can’t indict a sitting president is the reason why he was not indicted.” Lieu himself said, “What we established today in the hearing is that we have a felon sitting in the White House. Donald Trump committed multiple crimes of obstruction of justice.” Lieu suggested that Mueller came out stronger than he has on this point because “I read straight out of his report where he said there was substantial evidence of intent. Faced with that, he could come to no other conclusion than yes, he would have indicted Donald Trump but for the OLC opinion.”

Many listeners didn’t believe that this was what Mueller had intended to say, and they would be correct. In his opening statement in Wednesday afternoon’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller was quick to correct that misimpression:

Now, before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, “You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.” That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

Where does this leave us? Basically, exactly where we were before, which should be unsurprising to anyone who watched as Mueller performed at peak Bartleby all morning, refusing to read words from his own report (leaving House members to read them instead) and declining to amplify anything in the report beyond noting that it was “correct.” He mulishly resisted anyone’s characterization of any legal elements of, say, obstruction. And now, the one bit of news that seemed to have been news has been clarified back into the same exact legal language as was carefully crafted in the report. It was a misstep that was misunderstood and then retracted, a perfect capsule performance of how dragging an unwilling witness into a polemical hearing was never going to go well. 

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Is there really any doubt in your mind that he was being sincere in using the term "s*** hole countries"?

Sure he was sincere. If I recall he was talking about countries that some illegal immigrants are coming from. Why would they be leaving and coming here otherwise? That was some petty, behind closed doors, language that you guys love to embrace when it comes to President Trump. 

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

18 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The resistance has served it’s purpose.  It has divided this country along political/racial lines like it has never been done before. I will admit Trump has helped along the way.

You've come closer than most but you've still got that completely backwards. I think you know that. 

[homersapien 11,367]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sure he was sincere. If I recall he was talking about countries that some illegal immigrants are coming from. Why would they be leaving and coming here otherwise? That was some petty, behind closed doors, language that you guys love to embrace when it comes to President Trump. 

 

 

Yeah, and it reflected his inherent racism.  And he lied about that too:

Trump denies '****hole countries' remark but senator asserts he said it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/12/donald-trump-****hole-countries-tweet-denies-immigration-talks

 

Trump has no integrity or moral principles.  He is a narcissist with psychopathic tendencies.  This should have been apparent to everyone when he ridiculed the movements of a disabled reporter.

(And people are leaving to come here for the same reasons every other American's ancestors left to come here.)

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

You've come closer than most but you've still got that completely backwards. I think you know that. 

The origination of the divide we now face, in my opinion, was the left’s refusal to allow Trump to be President as he was duly elected.  From the start the Democrats told the public to resist, to get in the faces of all Republican law makers and shout them down.  The words of Maxine Waters and others were followed.

The Democrats put up road blocks (which they can do) for not only trivial things, but things that affect the living standards of all Americans just to frustrate Trump.  The best example of this is the immigration policy.  For years, both parties have campaigned on securing the boarders and no one has followed through. The Dems didn’t like Trump’s vibrato and style of campaigning, so they are determined to go full *open boarders* which is a complete departure from previous Democratic Presidents.  They appears to be doubling down in their resistance to boarder security because they are in too deep.  I have to ask, is this what is good for the country?  It appears that the Democrats just want to give a free pass to anybody that can vote without regard to the law, mob rule. 

The country is going in the wrong direction, we are not working together to solve problems.  Everybody’s ego is getting in the way of constructive solutions. JMHO.