Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Wild Hoss]

I get your position here T, but the language of the law is constantly altered in pursuit of the ends so I don't find that criticism especially scathing in the wider context. The next time congress flips, I suspect we'll see a revision of what constitutes obstruction in regards to the Executive.

In this specific instance however, DJT appears to have pulled the nose up before clipping the mountaintop of obstruction. I have zero qualms with him being dogged by the issue though.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Watching the news now is like watching a fucking Oliver Stoned movie...

[hack]

That would be of great concern, talent, if the process of governing took place in this thread. Since it doesn't, are we not to free to have our own Process?

[Wild Hoss]

Life imitates art.

In similar vein, I saw an ad for Full Metal Jacket being re-released in digital format for its 30-year anniversary. I might have to check that out.

[crashcourse]

talents manlove of buchanen is indeed disturbing

cost of a special prosecution for clinto was 80 million dollars

cost of this one would be hundreds of millions of dollars

so what if 10 investigatory agents haven't found anything ---its time to spend hundreds of millions for this gathering team of lawyers who will spend years to find what? the same thing comey did--nothing?

fleecing of middle America continues

[hack]

The next time congress flips, I suspect we'll see a revision of what constitutes obstruction in regards to the Executive.

We'll see. As I see it, as awful as Trump is, and though he has put the country at an inflection point, there's nothing he could ever do as corrupt as what Cheney did in starting a war and profiting from it. And neither Obama or Congress did anything about that. Maybe it takes something like this, where the perp doesn't seek to hide his actions or intentions.

[iam416]

I get your position here T, but the language of the law is constantly altered in pursuit of the ends so I don't find that criticism especially scathing in the wider context. The next time congress flips, I suspect we'll see a revision of what constitutes obstruction in regards to the Executive.

In this specific instance however, DJT appears to have pulled the nose up before clipping the mountaintop of obstruction. I have zero qualms with him being dogged by the issue though.

I thought and think the Clinton impeachment was preposterous. That said, the obstruction charge they brought against him colorably fit into the statute -- trying to influence witnesses to give false testimony. I can take Article 2 of the Clinton impeachment and apply it to 18 USC 1512.

I don't disagree with your pragmatic cynicism, especially in this particularly example. But my position is my position. You've read me long enough to know I certainly don't shy away from calling out Rs.

No one here will make the case for obstruction other than to say it's what they "feel." The investigation should, of course, continue. It would be quite a thing if, at the end of the day, they conclude that Russia interfered with the election and that there was no collusion. That would, IMO, put the final nail in the coffin for the media for half the country -- and I'm including the critical undecideds. Lots at stake.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Don't get me wrong. If the special council finds reasons to proceed to impeachment id support that process. That does not mean I'll like the spectacle and all the damage it will do.

If Trump removes the special council, there's Congressional precedent to move to impeach. I would guess if an impeachment process is undertaken, Trump, unlike Nixon, will fight it all the way. Minimum of 3y of disgraceful disengagement from governance.

I made this post up thread. I'm going to look at the question to undertake or not undertake an impeachment process on a risk-benefit basis.

Hack, you make your point: continuing to allow Trump to carry on as he has as President could be viewed as a significant risk, a compromise if you will, to what can be widely construed as American democratic principles. Ignoring that transgression would be properly characterized as abrogating responsibility to hold President's accountable to them in carrying out their Constitutional duties.

Impeachable behavior as described in the Constitution? Perhaps - that will be for Congress to determine if the process of Impeachment is undertaken. I think the risk to economic and political stability - albeit a soft judgment - of an impeachment proceeding outweighs the benefit of impeaching DJT.

There are reasonable options to that IMO. Talent points out the importance of process. Our representatives and the courts can continue to immobilize Trump and have already done so in several instances - most notably Trump's travel ban and the looming law suits from Maryland and Virginia regarding Trump's alleged violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

His HC plan - the POS put forward by the Republican controlled HOR - was DOA at the Senate and this just wasn't the Dems saying that. Reasonable voices will reduce the Freedom Caucus's negative impact regarding cuts to long standing safety net programs. Who knows what will emerge but it is highly unlikely that a final HC bill will look anything like what it looks like now and it is bad, way worse than the ACA.

I take Jon's concerns he voices about the unraveling of Dodd-Frank legislation as well founded. In the end, the current proposals to deregulate the banking system - the one that at the time was unregulated - the one that produced the 2008 recession - is going to be thoroughly debated. I'm reasonably confident that Congressional process will rule the day on that one.

Finally, again as talent posts, we are the voters. We can vote our Congressional Representatives out of office in 2018 and/or hold them accountable to our wishes as voters. We can vote Trump out of office in 2020. The trick there is to get involved at the grass routes/local level to make it happen.

I think a goodly number of comatose voters, those that didn't think through the consequences of electing this buffoon to the highest office in the land, know now the consequences of that vote. The damage Trump has done and could do, internationally and domestically, if he remains in office and unfettered by a disinterested electorate is considerable.

However, I believe that the seemingly longer and less striking process of an engaged electorate keeping him immobilized through our voices and our votes is a much better option than what I would call undertaking a knee jerk impeachment process.

[froot loops]

Ultimately people are making the case based on what they feel because we don't have the evidence and are not the investigators. Trump is the one giving this investigation the legs by his actions.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Ultimately people are making the case based on what they feel because we don't have the evidence and are not the investigators. Trump is the one giving this investigation the legs by his actions.

Agreed ...... keep it up Donald.

[Wild Hoss]

Is there doubt that Russia interfered in the election? I thought that was demonstrably true and accepted at this point, with only collusion TBD.

I was fairly certain that Russian and Trumpian anti-Clinton interests were merely aligned coincidentally several months ago, but the fact that folks in DJT's orbit are continuously caught lying/omitting contacts with Putin's government have compiled past the point where due suspicion is warranted from my POV.

Others may feel differently, and that's fine, but the facts are that these meetings have occurred and where hidden. The media wouldn't be fulfilling its role if it weren't digging into this issue with gusto.

[hack]

Trump has told us what he did, and we know what it means. He's obstructed justice again and again and again, and so have surrogates, from Pence down to Page and including Sessions, Nunes, etc. etc. Again, there's a gulf between the common understanding of words and actions and a court's understanding of them. We're the voters. These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country. On the one hand, let Mueller do his job. On the other, the fact that it would take so long is a priceless asset to enemies of the state. We can't change the process now. We have the most serious test to our system in decades, if not ever, and we're stuck with the degraded system we have to work our way out of it. It'll be a sign of recovery if the country emerges with legal reforms near the top of the agenda. Plus healthcare. Plus banking. Plus this, that and the next thing.

Again -- inflection point. Things either get a lot better or a lot worse from here. Which lead to this. I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think this is realistic:

However, I believe that the seemingly longer and less striking process of an engaged electorate keeping him immobilized through our voices and our votes is a much better option than what I would call undertaking a knee jerk impeachment process.


I don't think Americans have the political stamina for this, or the ability to overcome the intentional misdirection in media to perceive reality is it is. We're talking about fixes that take years and years, and sending people to jail by the dozens. That process would be overseen by people who have never in their lives understood what it really means to hold your own government accountable. They haven't been asked, because it hasn't really been needed. I don't think the skills and stamina are there.

[Wild Hoss]

Just curious...but what are the thoughts here on DJT firing Mueller?

I think that if I was him, I?d probably just go ahead and do it, as a political maneuver. In for a penny, in for a pound. The Repubs in congress are only going to push this issue so far IMO, and if he keeps tripping up the investigation it will eventually blow out in the face of the unceasing wind of issues his administration creates.

[iam416]

The media wouldn't be fulfilling its role if it weren't digging into this issue with gusto.

Setting that aside, Hoss, is that a nuance you think half of the country is going to appreciate? If the thought is "Hey, you just spent gads and gads and gads of time, print and other resources telling us, or at least implying, that DJT was in bed with Russians to fix the election." and the result is no collusion, will the reaction be (a) thanks for doing your job! or (b) how can we possibly trust your bullshit?

we know what it means.

The absolute worst of progressive thought. They always know what's best; always know what things mean. And woe be to anyone who dare disagrees. The rest of what follows that statement is not even worth quoting.

[iam416]

Just curious...but what are the thoughts here on DJT firing Mueller?

I think that if I was him, I’d probably just go ahead and do it, as a political maneuver. In for a penny, in for a pound. The Repubs in congress are only going to push this issue so far IMO, and if he keeps tripping up the investigation it will eventually blow out in the face of the unceasing wind of issues his administration creates.

I think you have to keep him. If you remove him you're creating a genuine mid-term election issue. If you have him there then (a) you already have someone in place doing the job when/if the Ds win the House; and (b) he can potentially save you.

But, whatever. I'm sure that whatever the worst political decision is -- that'll be the choice.