impeachment stupidity

[jeremyaaron]

If Biden or his son broke the law, they should be brought to justice. Whether or not Biden is guilty of a crime doesn't change whether Trump used his office for political gain.

The executive branch delegates responsibilities to various organizations, partly to keep the president in check and well-informed. The majority of investigations are the result of intelligence gathering by the various organizations under the president.

The CIA (intelligence gathering),
The State Department (international negotiation)
FBI (federal crime investigations) 

In matters of international investigations, departments can form joint operations to make sure the law is being carried out fairly and precisely. If the president needs to use his power to pressure another country, the top officials from those organizations advise the president on the best course of action. Sending an unofficial ambassador to negotiate with a country is absolutely uncommon. The president using his political sway to ask for an investigation without any intelligence is rare. The president sending his personal attorney is even more suspect.

A personal attorney is different than any other person. They have attorney-client privilege which means there are more legal hurdles to go through in order to force them to release information.

The president CAN go off kilter and make choices against the advice of his cabinet. This particular situation of going against the advice of his cabinet seems to be a case of personal gain.

The president claims that Rick Perry asked him to make the phone call, but that doesn't mean Rick Perry asked him to investigate Joe Biden.

The president paying hush money to a porn star during an election is not just "a reason not to vote for him". It's a blatant abuse of power.

The president using his twitter and public stage to actively sow distrust in the mueller investigation, as well as persuading his associates to withhold information could absolutely be considered obstruction of justice. Remember that Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. That charge was mainly based on Clinton using his so called "first amendment rights" to convince friends and family to deny that he had an affair. So there is precedent for impeaching on obstruction charges.

The next point-- Trump donating his profits from foreign patronage to the government is meaningless. It's a front to distract from his real gains. "Profits" mean very little in businesses as large as Trumps. Debt, growth of investments, and expansion to new markets are much better indicators of Trump's gains as a businessman. He might have less liquid capital than he did when he entered his office, but there is no indicator that he is not making substantial financial gains. Without his tax returns, it's very difficult to see how much he has actually benefited, which is probably one reason he will not release his returns.

 

[dogears]

Of course not. If the actions don't further administration policy goals what were the actions for? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question for Congressional oversight.

Again, this begs the question. Simply because the policy goal isn't communicated doesn't mean it exists. But sure, congressional oversight is great, as long as it is constitutional, generally not done in a disruptive spirit of partisanship, respects executive privilege and so forth. In other words, a fairy tale in modern US politics.  ;D

I am assuming there is a link but it doesn't matter if there is or if there isn't. The President asked a foreign leader to investigate a political rival for no stated policy goals. Like above if the policy goals were vague or non existent it doesn't make it wrong but it doesn't make it right either. The motivation is what matters. If it wasn't for a policy goal what was it for?

Wait, I'm confused. Evidence or suspicion of a crime is not sufficient as a "policy goal"? This seems to be an arbitrary standard.

Haven't we as a nation already had this conversation when we looked at the investigation of the Trump campaign? Wasn't the broad conclusion that there's nothing wrong with investigating a candidate for president if it's part of a criminal investigation? Even if it involves foreign agents, informants, other candidate's opposition research, and wiretapping?

Obama or any other President wouldn't have done it in the first place. If a President thought an American citizen was involved in corruption in a foreign nation it would have been referred to the DOJ to investigate. The DOJ would contact the appropriate Ukrainian authorities to help if they needed it. If the American citizen was a political rival any other President would have been extra careful to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest.

Ridiculous. The activities carried out by the DOJ are done under the authority of the president. When any duty is cast by law on the President, it is exercised by him through the appropriate department - and these acts (if legal) become the acts of the president. If the act is good, and lawful, it is no conflict of interest for the president to do it personally or through a subordinate. If the legal acts are done by officials in his administration, it is presumed to be his action.

This has been established by the Supreme Court over and over again.
Wilcox v. McConnel, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498, 513 (1839). See also United States v. Eliason, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 291 (1842); Williams v. United States, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 290, 297 (1843); United States v. Jones, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 92, 95 (1856); The Confiscation Cases, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 92 (1874); United States v. Farden, 99 U.S. 10 (1879); Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U.S. 755 (1880).

You're lecturing about avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, but totally silent on Mr Biden's actions in Ukraine? Those actions absolutely do not meet that standard. If President Trump deserves to be investigated because his actions have the appearance of a conflict of interest, then paradoxically his acts are justified by the appearance of a conflict of interest on Mr Biden's part.

I'm getting dizzy.

 

[dogears]

@jeremyaaron

See post above. Every legal act required by law performed by the administration is de facto performed by the President himself. Some acts can only be performed personally by him, others he can delegate.

Re-read Chief Justice Marshall's statement I posted earlier. "By the Constitution of the United States the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience...and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, there exists and can exist no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political."

Everything you're saying is simply wrong.

There is no, none, absolutely no bind on whom the president can appoint as a special agent in diplomatic negotiation. This has been established by the Supreme Court and literally hundreds of years of precedent in the US.

You may not like how he is executing his executive activities. But that does not make them illegal. How he chooses to execute them is a political question unless he violates the law. You're not accusing him of violating the law here. You're just saying you don't like it.

The president paying hush money to a porn star during an election is not just "a reason not to vote for him". It's a blatant abuse of power.

What??? He wasn't the president then, so what power was he abusing? Any regular joe can pay hush money for no reason - its not illegal or an abuse of power. It may have been a campaign finance violation. If so, he deserves to be punished on it. This is ridiculous.

The president using his twitter and public stage to actively sow distrust in the mueller investigation, as well as persuading his associates to withhold information could absolutely be considered obstruction of justice. Remember that Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. That charge was mainly based on Clinton using his so called "first amendment rights" to convince friends and family to deny that he had an affair. So there is precedent for impeaching on obstruction charges.

I ask again - did Mr Mueller recommend charges? Did President Trump break the law?

And no, President Clinton was not (merely) impeached for obstruction of justice. He was impeached for perjury in front of a grand jury, perjury in a civil case,  and abuse of power.  The obstruction of justice charges included encouraging a witness to execute a purjurious affidavit, encouraging a witness to give false testimony, concealing evidence, securing job assistence in exchange for favorable testimony, allowed his attorney to make false statements in a deposition, and related a false account of events to witnesses during a grand jury proceeding.

If President Trump did all of these things, or similar things, then surely Mr Mueller would have found sufficient evidence.  But he did not, or you can be sure that President Trump would have been impeached already.

The next point-- Trump donating his profits from foreign patronage to the government is meaningless. It's a front to distract from his real gains. "Profits" mean very little in businesses as large as Trumps. Debt, growth of investments, and expansion to new markets are much better indicators of Trump's gains as a businessman. He might have less liquid capital than he did when he entered his office, but there is no indicator that he is not making substantial financial gains. Without his tax returns, it's very difficult to see how much he has actually benefited, which is probably one reason he will not release his returns.

Didn't President Trump create a trust that his family manages? There's absolutely no way you know anything about his debt, investment growth or expansion of new markets, how much liquid capital he has, or anything else.

"There's no indicator he's not making substantial financial gains." 
When did you stop beating your wife?  :
There's no indicator he's not not making substantial financial gains.  ;D

There's no requirement for a president to release their tax returns. If the American people think there should be one, congress should pass a law.

He might have less liquid capital than he did when he entered his office, but there is no indicator that he is not making substantial financial gains.

This statement applies just as strongly to President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, Joe Biden, etc etc etc

I agree with you. Elected officials shouldn't go to Washington as normal citizens and leave as millionaires. Do you have a problem with President Obama's personal financial gains made while he was in office? He reportedly made $20 million from the time he started in the senate to the end of his presidency. Does that upset you?

 

[Gold]

Wait, I'm confused. Evidence or suspicion of a crime is not sufficient as a "policy goal"? This seems to be an arbitrary standard.

If there is suspicion of a crime then refer it to DOJ to see if there is any evidence. There has been no  evidence of anything, only suspsion.

You're lecturing about avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, but totally silent on Mr Biden's actions in Ukraine? Those actions absolutely do not meet that standard. If President Trump deserves to be investigated because his actions have the appearance of a conflict of interest, then paradoxically his acts are justified by the appearance of a conflict of interest on Mr Biden's part.

So far all accounts of Mr. Biden's actions in Ukraine have turned up nothing wrong. The President  is welcome to investigate again if he sees fit.  Just like Congress is free to investigate  the investigation. It may or may not be a corrupt act. The President has stated Mr. Biden has done something wrong without any evidence. If the President wants corruption investigations in foreign countries due to nepotism  I'm sure that would be welcomed by congress.

 

[dogears]

If there is suspicion of a crime then refer it to DOJ to see if there is any evidence. There has been no  evidence of anything, only suspsion.

Isn't that more or less what he's doing by involving the AG? And -- if it is determined that Mr Biden did in fact pressure the prosecutor to protect his son, there's plenty of evidence. If the payments from Ukraine to Hunter Biden were illegal, there's evidence, the things we already know about are evidence. But I'm not sure it matters. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the President of the United States asking a foreign official to investigate whether or not a crime occurred. As an outside observer, I think Mr Biden acted with an extreme conflict of interest and his self-admitted activities do not pass the test of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

If it is good and proper for the president to refer an issue to the DOJ to contact Ukraine it is just as proper for him to do it himself. Just like there's no difference between him working through a diplomat and working directly. Legally, there's no difference.

So far all accounts of Mr. Biden's actions in Ukraine have turned up nothing wrong. The President  is welcome to investigate again if he sees fit.  Just like Congress is free to investigate  the investigation. It may or may not be a corrupt act. The President has stated Mr. Biden has done something wrong without any evidence. If the President wants corruption investigations in foreign countries due to nepotism  I'm sure that would be welcomed by congress.

I have no problem with any of this at all.  8)

I also have no faith that we'll rise above the sound bites, rhetoric, and partisan squabbling.

 

[Gold]

This is ridiculous.
I ask again - did Mr Mueller recommend charges? Did President Trump break the law?

Mr Muller didn't recommend charges and didn't not recommend charges. He said because of DOJ policy he was unable to speak to the matter. It doesn't matter if Trump broke the law or not. Impeachment is a political process for "high crimes and misdemeanors" the criminal and civilian code don't matter. AFAIK abuse of power isn't a criminal or civilian offense. It's purely  political.

If President Trump did all of these things, or similar things, then surely Mr Mueller would have found sufficient evidence.  But he did not, or you can be sure that President Trump would have been impeached already.

Mr. Barr did an excellent spin job. Mr Muller found plenty of evidence of obstruction of justice. Ten counts. Mr. Trump never gave a deposition or testified under oath. Without that perjury is impossible. Mr. Trump has engages in what looks an awful lot like witness tampering on a regular basis.

He reportedly made $20 million from the time he started in the senate to the end of his presidency. Does that upset you?

I know he made a lot after he left office from the book deal. Do you have a citation on that $20 million while in office? I don't have a problem with politician cashing in with books and lectures after they leave office. Lobbying is different. There is so much legal political corruption that any politician who engages is illegal corruption has to be an idiot. If he did make that $20 million while in office it must have been perfectly legal. In the Trump era it seems like legality is the applicable metric. Anything less is fine and dandy.

 

[Gold]

Isn't that more or less what he's doing by involving the AG?

No, he directly asked a foreign government to investigate.

 

[dogears]

I know he made a lot after he left office from the book deal. Do you have a citation on that $20 million while in office? I don't have a problem with politician cashing in with books and lectures after they leave office. Lobbying is different. There is so much legal political corruption that any politician who engages is illegal corruption has to be an idiot. If he did make that $20 million while in office it must have been perfectly legal. In the Trump era it seems like legality is the applicable metric. Anything less is fine and dandy.

Re: bolded part... Ain't it a shame?

The real problem is going by old-fashioned words like "honor" and "integrity" are a total joke and have been as long as I can remember. You'll note I am not a Trump voter, or supporter in any way. I sit on the sidelines and get mad, at both sides, because they all a bunch of corrupt, worthless, crooked self-promoters. I think the entire political system in the United States is fractured, and part of me loves having someone like Donald Trump in office to show it for what it really is.  It's petty spite on my part. B

Most of what President Obama made was on books while he was in office. ($15.6 Million)
Citiations on numbers:
https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-michelle-obama-net-worth-2018-7#the-obamas-entered-the-white-house-with-a-13-million-net-worth-in-2008-that-has-since-grown-to-40-million-according-to-a-2018-estimation-1
https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html
https://onlinebusiness.american.edu/blog/presidents-net-worth/
https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/politicians/barack-obama-net-worth/

From the second to last:
Whether the next administration can keep the streak alive is less clear. Trump moves into the White House with a sprawling real estate empire and a $3.7 billion fortune, Forbes estimates. The presidency wouldn’t grant him new access to deals he hasn’t already seen dozens or hundreds of times before. We’ll just have to wait and find out if Trump sees similar gains, or becomes the first modern chief executive to net no financial benefit from holding the highest office in the land.

Kind of an interesting counter-point to people assuming he became president to get rich. 

 

[Gold]

If it is good and proper for the president to refer an issue to the DOJ to contact Ukraine it is just as proper for him to do it himself. Just like there's no difference between him working through a diplomat and working directly. Legally, there's no difference.I have no problem with any of this at all.  8)

It is not the same thing. The President has no authority to directly bring charges against anyone or anything. If the United States is the Plaintiff then the DOJ has to bring charges. If the President asked the DOJ to bring up charges and there is no legal basis for it they can't. They swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President.

 

[jeremyaaron]

@jeremyaaron

See post above. Every legal act required by law performed by the administration is de facto performed by the President himself. Some acts can only be performed personally by him, others he can delegate.

Absolutely false. Executives are only legally responsible when they are personally involved. If executives were responsible for all actions of their subordinates, then Trump would have been booted from office a long time ago. Do the names George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen mean nothing to you? Trump was able to maintain plausible deniability of involvement in all these cases because he was not the actor.

Re-read Chief Justice Marshall's statement I posted earlier. "By the Constitution of the United States the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience...and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, there exists and can exist no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political."

This quote is completely out of context. Marshall argued the opposite of what you are saying. He decided that Jefferson did not have absolute power when it comes to carrying out his duty to execute laws affecting individual rights. So this phone call with Ukraine would be a blatant abuse if Marshall's opinion holds today. Negotiating for the investigation of a political rival without evidence warranting an investigation is an abuse of that person's individual rights. The president is not a legal prosecutor or an intelligence official. Read a couple lines down in Marshall's decision.

when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others. - Marshall

There is no, none, absolutely no bind on whom the president can appoint as a special agent in diplomatic negotiation. This has been established by the Supreme Court and literally hundreds of years of precedent in the US.

This is flat out wrong. The constitution explicitly states that all public officials must have the consent of the Senate. The only exception is when congress explicitly grants permission to the President to appoint "inferior officers" without consent. In this case, Giuliani wasn't performing as an inferior officer. He was in negotiations with  top officials, which makes him a superior officer who needs consent of congress.

You may not like how he is executing his executive activities. But that does not make them illegal. How he chooses to execute them is a political question unless he violates the law. You're not accusing him of violating the law here. You're just saying you don't like it.
What??? He wasn't the president then, so what power was he abusing? Any regular joe can pay hush money for no reason - its not illegal or an abuse of power. It may have been a campaign finance violation. If so, he deserves to be punished on it. This is ridiculous.
I ask again - did Mr Mueller recommend charges? Did President Trump break the law?

Mueller didn't recommend charges because he believed that only Congress can indict a sitting president. He left it up to congress to interpret the report and make their own decisions. I believe President Trump has broke the law on numerous occasions. That's my opinion based on the available evidence. The impeachment investigation will clarify the situation.

If President Trump did all of these things, or similar things, then surely Mr Mueller would have found sufficient evidence.  But he did not, or you can be sure that President Trump would have been impeached already.

Have you read even the first couple pages of the Mueller report?

There's no requirement for a president to release their tax returns. If the American people think there should be one, congress should pass a law.
This statement applies just as strongly to President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, Joe Biden, etc etc etc

All of those people released their taxes, presumably because they didn't have anything substantial to hide.

I agree with you. Elected officials shouldn't go to Washington as normal citizens and leave as millionaires. Do you have a problem with President Obama's personal financial gains made while he was in office? He reportedly made $20 million from the time he started in the senate to the end of his presidency. Does that upset you?

I would be upset if any public official used their office for personal gain. But I haven't seen any evidence that Obama used his office for personal gain while he was in office.

 

[dogears]

Absolutely false. Executives are only legally responsible when they are personally involved. If executives were responsible for all actions of their subordinates, then Trump would have been booted from office a long time ago. Do the names George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen mean nothing to you? Trump was able to maintain plausible deniability of involvement in all these cases because he was not the actor.

You read too fast before reacting. I'll say it again: Every legal act required by law performed by the administration is de facto performed by the President himself. Legal act, required by law.

This quote is completely out of context. Marshall argued the opposite of what you are saying. He decided that Jefferson did not have absolute power when it comes to carrying out his duty to execute laws affecting individual rights. So this phone call with Ukraine would be a blatant abuse if Marshall's opinion holds today. 

Who said anything about absolute power? 

Negotiating for the investigation of a political rival without evidence warranting an investigation is an abuse of that person's individual rights.

;D ;D ;D
What individual right is violated? This is pretty amusing.
There was a quid pro quo
There was an illegal emolument
Mr. Biden's individual rights were violated

Im curious what else you're going to throw on the wall next.

The president is not a legal prosecutor or an intelligence official. Read a couple lines down in Marshall's decision.

I don't think this is nearly the air-tight argument you think it is. 

This is flat out wrong. The constitution explicitly states that all public officials must have the consent of the Senate. The only exception is when congress explicitly grants permission to the President to appoint "inferior officers" without consent. In this case, Giuliani wasn't performing as an inferior officer. He was in negotiations with  top officials, which makes him a superior officer who needs consent of congress.

Sorry broseph, you're wrong here.  President can appoint diplomatic special agents without advice and consent of the senate.
"Persons appointed for a special and temporary purpose in connection with foreign affairs, and whose employment ceases when the purpose is accomplished, are mere pro tempore aids to the President in the performance of his executive functions."
Feel free to read more.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-2/presidential-diplomatic-agents

Mueller didn't recommend charges because he believed that only Congress can indict a sitting president. He left it up to congress to interpret the report and make their own decisions. I believe President Trump has broke the law on numerous occasions. That's my opinion based on the available evidence. The impeachment investigation will clarify the situation.

I think if it was as damning as you say it was, congress would have impeached him a long time ago.

Have you read even the first couple pages of the Mueller report?

Yes, and more than the first couple of pages. I read the part where he said the investigation "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

His conclusion that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" is a shame. I think it was a political statement. Investigations do not exonerate people from crimes. It is not his job to do that. He has no legal authority to do that, his investigation and his report was not intended to do that. The whole idea that lack of evidence of guilt is not exoneration is wrong-headed. Exoneration is not a legal standard in our system.

All of those people released their taxes, presumably because they didn't have anything substantial to hide.

That is garbage, and an awful un-American way to look at things. We have never in this country had the expectation that a person has to prove their innocence. If there's a legal mechanism or valid purpose to force his disclosure, then by all means. But you and I don't have any more right to see his tax returns than you have to see mine. Would you accuse me of having something to hide if I told you I wouldn't show you mine? It's ridiculous.

I would be upset if any public official used their office for personal gain. But I haven't seen any evidence that Obama used his office for personal gain while he was in office.

How about Mr Biden?  :


You can have the last word here. I don’t think there’s anything productive to be said by me at this point.

 

[jeremyaaron]

Your interpretation of precedent is mind boggling. It's as if the President of The United States were an ordinary citizen. He's the opposite of an ordinary citizen! He has a responsibility to be transparent on matters such as his finances so that voters can make an educated decision. The  tradition of releasing taxes hasn't been signed into law because it never required a law until Trump. Every person running for the presidency in recent history understood the importance of transparency. The fact that Trump refuses to disclose his taxes should be a red flag to everyone. But Trump is a master at playing on people's values. The line of thinking is, "we all have a right to privacy, and Trump is just exercising his rights. It would be wrong to force any citizen to give up his rights." But at what cost does Trump exercise his rights? Trump represents our entire country and he is responsible for faithfully executing federal law.

Our government and our democracy rely on the good faith of public officials. Our constitution and lawmakers foresee some foul play and plan for those cases when writing laws, but there is no way to foresee every case. One example would be the two term limit, written into law after FDR's presidency. It was only after his presidency that the law was written, because almost every president before him kept with the tradition of a two term presidency. Campaign tradition is relied on in many cases. For example, debates are not a legal requirement for candidates, but every candidate has always participated so we don't need a law that requires debates. But what would be the cost if candidates suddenly refused to debate and just relied on advertisements and grassroots action? Probably a much more fractured and ill-informed public.

And to respond-

I am guessing that Trump's actions fit into all three of the accusations you set forth.

1. Trump has used his office to plan quid pro quo arrangements that would personally benefit him.

2. Trump has accepted emoluments from foreign governments and domestic interests

3. Trump violated Hunter and Joe Biden's rights as citizens of the United States. The right violated is that public officials will not use their power to persecute a citizen based on a personal vendetta.

In fact, the decision from the Marbury v Madison case you quoted is quite similar. Jefferson had come into office succeeding his political rival, John Adams. In his last few days in office, Adams had appointed many judges, but never delivered some of their commissions. When Jefferson came into office, he refused to deliver Adams' commissions, claiming that they were not in effect until delivered. One judge who lost his commission, Marbury, won it back in this case. It was ruled that the commissions were in effect even if they weren't delivered physically. The supreme court has continuously ruled against the President using his power for personal gain or political vendettas. His power only extends as far as his duties as president.

 

[boji]

Our government and our democracy rely on the good faith of public officials

As a sentiment to strive for in a position of authority sure, but it's not good faith but law and the threat of punishment that keeps us from tearing each other apart like monkeys.

 

[sodderboy]

In his bumbling testimony Muller said that President Donald J. Trump was not not guilty.  Huh?  That den of Weissman wolves would have loaded the Muller Dossier with real facts and charged him if there was anything at all.  Isn't Manafort still in bloody SOLITARY in jail?  Please don't list the indictments etc.  All the russian stuff was pure sheister theater.
They squeezed all they could and it was indeed a nothingburger.  People who hate President Donald J. Trump have to find some real food.  They are crazy with hunger.

This whole wisthpbleblower thing is a tempest in a thimble.  Even with a SECOND wisthpelblower. . .  OH NOOOO!!!  Throw a third slimy leaker at it and it will still be nothing.  I understand the "death by a thousand" cuts strategy being employed by the democrat media-political complex, but figuratively they are are slipping in President Donald J. Trump's blood and hurting themselves.

Mike

 

[Recording Engineer]

As a sentiment to strive for in a position of authority sure, but it's not good faith but law and the threat of punishment that keeps us from tearing each other apart like monkeys.

I think you may have just answered what should be done.

 

[jeremyaaron]

Did someone seriously just defend Paul Manafort?

Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, failure to register as a foreign agent of Ukraine, and witness tampering. He was also convicted on tax fraud and indicted on numerous other charges.

Trump talks about the swamp. Manafort IS the swamp! And he was the head of Trump's campaign. He's not some distant acquaintance, he's a close associate.

Mueller has never exonerated Trump or claimed he was not guilty. He said that he didn't find enough evidence that Trump was involved in Russia's election influence efforts to recommend charges. He also left it up to Congress to decide whether to pursue obstruction charges. 

The indictments of the Mueller trial were far from theater. Did Mueller speak to the press a single time through the entire investigation? I doubt it. He did his job to the best of his ability, and high level officials who were close to Trump got caught for serious crimes.

I neither see that as "crazy with hunger" or "slipping on blood" as you so vividly describe it.

The president's personal lawyer was convicted! What kind of lawyer gets convicted of felonies?

It's clear that Trump's inner circle contained multiple white collar criminals, and now Trump himself has finally slipped up and failed to cover his tracks in a corrupt act. He'll be treated as fairly as any other  President facing impeachment.

 

[fazer]

Hey Jeremyaaron.  Welcome to DIY.  Do you have any electronic interest?    It’s just 7 post so far feels a little suspicious.  When there all in one category.  The other people here have numerous post and we may disagree on politics, but they are very helpful people in terms of the love of electronics, sound and music. 

That said,  as bluebird said this is an interesting thread.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hey Jeremyaaron.  Welcome to DIY.  Do you have any electronic interest?    It’s just 7 post so far feels a little suspicious.  When there all in one category.  The other people here have numerous post and we may disagree on politics, but they are very helpful people in terms of the love of electronics, sound and music. 

That said,  as bluebird said this is an interesting thread.

There is actually no rule against that (I checked in the past regarding a similar situation).

We are a DIY audio electronics forum and the brewery is just a catch all sub forum for friendly banter between old friends on any topic.

For any newcomers not yet aware, here are the official rules of behavior for this forum... https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=6650.msg78051#msg78051

For extra emphasis wrt political discussions

4. You will find that the members of this community are incredibly courteous and respectful of each other, so please reciprocate those gestures. Leave the Flame-war mentality at another forum.  Personal attacks as well as general hateful comments (regarding race, religion, gender, sex, etc...) will not be tolerated.

We have only had to remove a small handful of individuals for chronic trolling and ad hominem over several years.. And then only after they ignored numerous warnings. The only remedy remaining was removing them from the forum.

It is not that hard to be respectful and courteous, even thought that is not very common behavior around the internets these days. It is the expected behavior here.

Welcome new guys, old guys, whatever..

JR

 

[jeremyaaron]

Hi John,

Are you suggesting that my responses here have been disrespectful? If so, please explain and I will alter my wording.

I generally keep quiet and just read posts because DIY audio is a hobby of mine, but it's hard for me to keep quiet when I see a discussion like this one.

Also,
I'm not exactly a newcomer. I've been registered on the forum for two years and been reading it for much longer.

 

[fazer]

Nothing wrong with your responses.  Keep posting.  There are very long responses in this thread that interest people and lurking in a forum is also common.    There are also stories now of super bots to carry on Conversations and it’s a brave new world. 

It’s between you and dogears at this point.  Fascinating

So what’s next?