Well seen. Yes it is very possible. And in addition, the figures are certainly manipulated as in Europe
General / Off-Topic Trump: Legal Issues (was The Testimony of James Comey)
- Thread starter Robin of Spiritwood
- Start date
- Status
Well seen. Yes it is very possible. And in addition, the figures are certainly manipulated as in Europe
Minonian
Banned
At the cost to close down USA's market, and literally killing the world, by denouncing environmental politics, and regulations. In the long run, it's costs them more than brings. This not happened for the people but for the interests of energy corporations and out of date polluting technologies.
To reach improvement at this cost is not a success but a failure, and we all going to pay the price in world economy and political stability + with our own health, not to mention the full scale natural disasters triggered by global warming and nature pollution. I seriously think it's time to Trump to go to that firely place.
Last edited:
I have said before: Short term gains, for a harder fall or crash, when it comes and it will.
Legally Trump cannot personally remove special counsel. Not without first removing the laws that prohibit him from doing so, which as I understand he can, but that is a slippery slope. Only the AG has authority to do so and only with reason, since Session's recusal himself now that power rests solely with the deputy AG. So this was already made less than improbable the moment the AG recused himself.
I love the presumption of guilt. This is still America.
If they uncover any major crimes my guess is the investigation will turn to prosecution sooner than later. Personally, I'd be surprised if the investigation didn't carry over into next year, as the language that formed the special counsel was so vague as to put few tangible limits on what they could investigate.
"authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the special counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses."
Emphasis is mine. But "in the course of.." basically gives the counsel cart blanch to investigate anything Trump or his team is doing right now that may seem suspicious on a Federal level, not to mention anything they can remotely connect to the Russians or the election. So in theory the longer the investigation stays open, the more they have to look into. Its an unusually wide purview, typically special counsel investigations are a bit more focused.
When a woman is standing over the bloody body of a man, a bent poker in her hand, screaming "HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE SAID THAT ABOUT OUR NEVILLE!" you don't really need to go through the entire court case before having an opinion in a non-legal internet forum setting, do you?
The culpability of some of Trumps team in this is now obvious and admitted. Trump Jnr actually admitted meeting a Russian agent to get dirt on a political opponent. Implying it isn't there doesn't do wonders for any claims to impartiality you may have, to put it mildly.
Minonian
Banned
That's the thing! And although you can be wrong after one or two case, but if you find that person in situations like this over and over again? That's not just your average opinion. We seen too many times the smoking gun in his hands, (and not someone said there is the smoking gun) to not think he is guilty as charged.
Redeeming quality? That's not going to help him out anymore, after all even the most bloody handed murderer have a human side, but it does not makes him any less guilty in his crimes. So no! We are not going to look what good he did, he is way too guilty, and humanly dubious for that.
Trump always said he wouldn't take vacations and yet here we are with him taking 17 days off. He was so adamant that he wouldn't take time off. Do you think there's a chance there's more to this vacation than they are telling us? Maybe he's being forced to take time off under doctor's orders?
Of course there is always the possibility that he was lying.
We should aspire to. Trying cases in a court of public opinion is dicey business. Many innocents would have gone to jail, may criminals set free, and many convicted for laws that don't exist but people think they do or should. I prefer to let due process take its course, that's why we have it.
I never made any such claims to impartiality. Do you hold impartiality up to me as a virtue? Here? In THIS forum?
I said before he took the oath; give it time and him finding out that the job is not just nice dinners and hand shakes and he'll get stressed with the work load.
Nobody is saying that Trump should be arbitrarily locked up. You're confusing me with a Trump supporter discussing Clintons Emails.
This isn't a "court of public opinion". There is no trial here. People are discussing the evidence of their own eyes and they are perfectly entitled to form an opinion on it and speak to that opinion (if the forum owners allow it).
You've constructed a strawman there.
"Impartiality" was a polite way of saying "not absurdly partisan". The level of corruption in Trumps team, if not Trump himself, is completely bloody obvious at this point. This isn't about left/right libertarianism/statism or anything like that. This is about a dangerous demagogue who has colluded with a dangerous and hostile foreign power to gain control of the United States.
I would write that off as campaign talk. I, could be related to my background, actively encourage everyone to take time off every now and then. Not doing so is simply unhealthy if your job is sufficiently demanding. Sleep well, eat healthy and take your family to a resort every now and then. You'll perform better.
If he is convicted of same I'll happily agree with you. Until then, I hate to inform you, so far the "smoking gun" evidence that has come out is tenuous at best. The only thing on the table right now is intent, and you cannot make a conviction on intent to break the. The only certain thing so far to come out of this debacle is "collusion" has been suddenly transmogrified into a dirty word, as if it were somehow illegal to "collude". Collusion doesn't appear in any of the statutes that might even remotely be at play. Couples "collude" whenever they decide together where to go our for dinner. Wishing for more than this at this juncture only serves to solidify my own interpretation of what is expected as "impartial" in this thread. I'm not a liberal, so....
Ha!
Team "LOCK HER UP!" Trump doesnt think that 'intentionally colluding with a main adversary on the international stage' is any kind of issue 'until proven in a court of law'. FWIW: intent is generally more then enough to convict someone btw, in pretty much any western nation. This goes back over 2000 years in western civilization. "I intended to rob the bank but failed due [reason x]" is a crime pretty much everywhere in normal countries. And you dont need to be superbly impartial to see why.
"Trump colluded with the Russians."
"No he didn't!"
*evidence is presented*
"Whats wrong with collusion?!"
[haha]
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
Possibility?
....Uhm.... Poe's Law?
I'm sorry, WHAT?
It is.
https://www.justsecurity.org/41593/...ce-law-trump-campaign-collusion-russia-trump/
Right. Representatives of a candidate for President of the United States meeing with Russian agents in order to obtain hacked information on a political opponent and on the understanding of promising political favours in return is EXACTLY THE SAME as asking your loved one whether you should hit a restaurant or get takeaway.
You murdered satire.
NO, intent is an element of a crime, like motive. You can't convict people for having motive no more than you can for intent. You are substituting attempted crime with intended crime to make your point. In my mind, I can intend and plan to rob a bank a million times over. It is not illegal, unless I actually attempt to carry it out.
This is my point. Trump could sit down with Putin and hash out a bilateral trade agreement which is found to break no international law or agreements. It is, by definition, collusion. Is it illegal by US law?
I suspect it's only a matter of days or weeks before the wheels finally come off the Trump bandwagon. I really don't understand why anybody is clinging on. There are no positives to this embarrassing political tragedy. Apart from the comedy side. But I worry the aftermath will be even worse.
- Status