whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
What has trump done? Just curious.
mueller wants to interview trump
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Heil Tweetler
Well-Known Member
Trump’s aides knew he was stupid. They knew it all along. Wolff cites comments about this from so many people—Bannon, Ailes, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, economic adviser Gary Cohn, Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg—that the consensus is inescapable, even if you discount half the quotes. Wolff also mentions Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who couldn’t deny earlier this year that he had called Trump a “moron.” Trump’s aides also knew, well before he was elected, that he was insecure, petulant, and sleazy. When Ailes warned Bannon that a man being discussed for a post in the administration had “got in a fight in a hotel one night and chased some woman,” Bannon shot back: “If I told Trump that, he might have the job.”Yea keep lying to yourself... ..
The miscalculation went both ways. Trump, expecting to lose, never tried to put together a team that could run the government. He brought in people of low character and limited ability. Unversed in public service, he turned to others who were similarly unprepared. He knew little or nothing about them. Those he knew best—his children and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner—were completely out of their element.
ANC
Well-Known Member
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He has generated fear and it actually is good for some stocks. I'm not saying it is a good thing, just that the savvy can benefit from boom or bust and the ultra rich benefit from pretty much everything unless it's a regime that resembles the Khmer Rouge.
Aside from that, nothing he has done has yet had a significant impact on the economy. Of course, that tax plan will lead to serious bust soon enough and when aggregate demand spirals it is hard for anyone but the donor class to benefit.
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Of course. I just wanted an answer about what good he has actually done.
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
It comes down to I hear this shit daily where I live.
Christmas dinner I got in a discussion about healthcare and then the tax plan and it led to my Christian relative going on about how Obama screwed the country up and how much good Trump has done.
I asked what Obama had done that was so bad. All I got was a blank stare. I called him on it. Told him he was just mad about abortions and gay marriage. Neither of which effects either of our lives. I went on to ask what good Trump had done. Again a blank stare. Again I called him on the fact that anything he wants from trump is either to ban abortion, gay marriage or immigration all of which doesn't effect our lives.
I was called a fake Christian on here a while back. I don't think I really want to be labeled Christian. I believe in God but I also believe in tolerance and acceptance. Something I haven't seen out of Christians lately. I even tried going back to church for a while. I quit again. I don't have the stomach to listen to how bad gays and brown people are. Neither of which have ever done anything wrong to me.
Christmas dinner I got in a discussion about healthcare and then the tax plan and it led to my Christian relative going on about how Obama screwed the country up and how much good Trump has done.
I asked what Obama had done that was so bad. All I got was a blank stare. I called him on it. Told him he was just mad about abortions and gay marriage. Neither of which effects either of our lives. I went on to ask what good Trump had done. Again a blank stare. Again I called him on the fact that anything he wants from trump is either to ban abortion, gay marriage or immigration all of which doesn't effect our lives.
I was called a fake Christian on here a while back. I don't think I really want to be labeled Christian. I believe in God but I also believe in tolerance and acceptance. Something I haven't seen out of Christians lately. I even tried going back to church for a while. I quit again. I don't have the stomach to listen to how bad gays and brown people are. Neither of which have ever done anything wrong to me.
Last edited:
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Sure you have. In Alabama the Christians showed tolerance for a serial pedophile and acceptance of his racist and homophobic beliefs.
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
not to mention citizens united
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
i've stopped speaking to my southern baptist family. they know why and after still supporting trump to this day they don't believe they have done anything wrong. but they do hate gays, muslims and abortions...
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Yea. Seems god forgives unless you are gay or brown.Sure you have. In Alabama the Christians showed tolerance for a serial pedophile and acceptance of his racist and homophobic beliefs.
I've seen different types of Baptist. The church I was raised in was a lot different than what I've seen where I live now.
I guess the difference being I was raised near a military base. Lot of different people and backgrounds.
Where I live now is predominately white and lived here their whole life. Never traveled or been exposed to different belief systems.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Please expound. I have scoured every source and have not come across this argument. At least not by this wording but I did touch on this in my previous post in regards to arguments against indictment. I pointed out that it is commonly argued that it is untoward for a grand jury to override the will of the people.
You didn't reply to me directly but your second paragraph seems to be responding to my post. Maybe not though because I agree with it. It should be an argument against indictment because Pence is pretty fucking terrible and also democracy lol. The people never had power in the US.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It is true that wealthy people have too much control over this country and this has been more or less true for the history of this country. It doesn't have to be that way.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Here is a recent article on it: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/can_a_sitting_president_be_indicted_the_constitution_doesnt_give_a_definiti/
The U.S. Supreme Court has never decided whether a president may be criminally prosecuted while in office, and the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give a direct answer.
But the prevailing view is that a president can’t be indicted while in office, the New York Times reports. Presidents can be prosecuted, however, after they leave office or after impeachment, according to conventional wisdom.
The issue is being debated anew amid reports that President Donald Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to shut down an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some have questioned whether the alleged request amounted to obstruction of justice.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, doesn’t directly address the issue of prosecution in office. It reads: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar agrees with most scholars that a sitting president can’t be criminally prosecuted. He says the Constitution designates Congress as the court that tries sitting presidents.
“If you’re going to undo a national election, the body that does that should have a national mandate,” Amar told the New York Times “Even a federal prosecution would follow only from an indictment from a grand jury sitting in one locality.”
In a 1997 law review article, Amar argues that states can’t use their power to derail the functioning of the United States by prosecuting sitting presidents. And a federal prosecution would raise separation of powers problems, putting the executive branch at the mercy of the judiciary, he argued. Vox noted the article.
Taking the other side is Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman, who wrote a 1999 law review article that argued sitting presidents have no constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution.
He argues that federal judges can be indicted, even though they are removed by impeachment. And, he says, giving sitting presidents immunity is inconsistent with the history, structure and philosophy of the U.S. government.
But the prevailing view is that a president can’t be indicted while in office, the New York Times reports. Presidents can be prosecuted, however, after they leave office or after impeachment, according to conventional wisdom.
The issue is being debated anew amid reports that President Donald Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to shut down an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some have questioned whether the alleged request amounted to obstruction of justice.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, doesn’t directly address the issue of prosecution in office. It reads: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar agrees with most scholars that a sitting president can’t be criminally prosecuted. He says the Constitution designates Congress as the court that tries sitting presidents.
“If you’re going to undo a national election, the body that does that should have a national mandate,” Amar told the New York Times “Even a federal prosecution would follow only from an indictment from a grand jury sitting in one locality.”
In a 1997 law review article, Amar argues that states can’t use their power to derail the functioning of the United States by prosecuting sitting presidents. And a federal prosecution would raise separation of powers problems, putting the executive branch at the mercy of the judiciary, he argued. Vox noted the article.
Taking the other side is Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman, who wrote a 1999 law review article that argued sitting presidents have no constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution.
He argues that federal judges can be indicted, even though they are removed by impeachment. And, he says, giving sitting presidents immunity is inconsistent with the history, structure and philosophy of the U.S. government.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't ignore it.
You on the other hand are a complete idiot.
Do you REALLY know what he did? I mean what he REALLY did?
The only thing he did was say out loud what everybody else was thinking. He simply said Trump was not going to be a good president. He thought Trump was an idiot. He thought Cruz would have been a better president.
That was it, idiot. He simply texted shit that he thought to a friend, not knowing anybody would find out.
He never broke any law.
He never did anything unethical in the investigation.
He simply told a friend what he thought about Trump.
Mueller had everybody on his team investigated. The INSTANT Mueller found out those text, he canned his ass. Not because Peter had done anything actually wrong or broken any law, but because Mueller wanted to avoid even the REMOTE HINT of prejudice or impropriety in the investigation.
It was Mueller that told everybody everything about this entire thing.
But idiot that you are, you keep thinking it was something that orange, shit-for-brains asshole you love so much came up with.
THAT is what is so funny to me: you're so fucking stupid and blind that you have NO IDEA AT ALL what you're talking about.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ok, I read Reed's articles before but not all of Amar's. Thanks for that. I agree with Reed and I don't see how exactly the media has come to the conclusion that Amar's is the prevalent view. I think it was the prevailing view because these arguments were written in the 90s during Clinton's frivolous blowjob case and nobody thought he was a criminal. Without a precedent, we can only trade opinions and make inductive arguments.
I wonder what Amar would say about this case, since the content of the investigation is directly related to foreign interference in the election. Would he still cite separation of powers as his premise? I don't think so.
Really, it is time to set a precedent. I wouldn't say that the constitution is resilient, I would echo FDR and say it's elastic and extremely flexible. It is what federal officials want it to be when they need it. There is certainly nothing in the document that rules out prosecuting a sitting president, only interpretations of "what the framers would have wanted".
In any case, it's a clever argument by Amar but he was interested in defending Clinton from a frivolous Case. How much would he change his views to see Trump arrested for cheating the election with help from Russia and then firing Comey? Would Freedman argue the same now or did he just want to see Clinton get smoked? Would Ken Starr be as determined as he was in the 90s if he was going after Trump? I think if he believed half of his rhetoric (office memos) we would see the president prosecuted.
I don't think it will happen, but not because a good argument can't be made. We're here scouring the internet for articles and trying to apply what was argued in Clinton's case to Trump's.
I also don't think we will ever see 66 senators voting to remove Trump from office. Censure maybe.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I will paste both law reviews here so we can all see these arguments.
Amar argues for potus immunity:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers
Reed argues against potus immunity:
http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=hlr
Amar argues for potus immunity:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers
Reed argues against potus immunity:
http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=hlr
Sanitas Vibrationum
Active Member
And as a thank you note Trump kicked out Russian consulate general in SF for major spying OP's they been running there for years, or may be, just may be Trump wanted that piece of real estate to himself?
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Not a legal scholar by any means, but I come down on the side of he "should" be charged while in office if the crime is a major felony and national security is at stake. I'm of the opinion that nobody should be above the law, most certainly the president.
I don't want to see us get to the point that a president can be harrassed over petty, irrelevant issues. But treason, or major obstruction, especially if it includes conspiracy, certainly meets the criteria I would like to see a president held to.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
They started impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for getting a blow job from an intern of legal age.
Several of Trumps team have been arrested and/or plead guilty already to obstruction charges, yet Trump has not yet been even subpoenaed yet, let alone charged.
If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is.