The Trump Crime Family
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
I could have found more also, checking if Jaliman could. The Paris accord, really? That never should have been started, fucking money grab. Obamacare, good for the very poor, that is it. Transgender in the military, yeah not against it but the military dudes are probably not as politically correct as the ones who want it to happen, hazing could be brutal, could be wrong but just my thought.
^^^ STN, you already made it clear you didn't think these were accomplishments. That is fine, people have different political priorities. But you can't say that Trump isn't trying to overturn Obama's accomplishments because you don't think they were good. He is trying (and has mostly succeeded) to overturn them, whether or not you think they were good.
^^ Bread Sob, you don't need my permission, obviously. Of course, if you aren't going to read it, you aren't allowed to pretend you know what it says or means.
^^ Bread Sob, you don't need my permission, obviously. Of course, if you aren't going to read it, you aren't allowed to pretend you know what it says or means.
I sincerely sympathize with your predicament, having egg all over one's face surely doesn't help one's reading comprehension. But in case you decide to make an effort (however strenuous) anyway, you may possibly notice that I quoted directly from the report, even giving you the page number. Thank you as always for paying close attention.
^^^^^^ Up 2. So, let's say you just became the team lead for a major project and the person you took over from made some bad choices, are you supposed to leave those ideas in place or do you change them to what you think is better for the job?
Obvious I am not the only one who does not agree with some of the Obama policies or we would not be having this discussion. My comment was started because Jaliman said Trump was trying to remove " all " of Obama's accomplishments, just like his "all" religions are against females etc. Yes, new leaders change things to what they want, it happens everywhere in every business.
When Trudeau gets booted out in October Scheer will be changing many of his policies, it is expected.
Obvious I am not the only one who does not agree with some of the Obama policies or we would not be having this discussion. My comment was started because Jaliman said Trump was trying to remove " all " of Obama's accomplishments, just like his "all" religions are against females etc. Yes, new leaders change things to what they want, it happens everywhere in every business.
When Trudeau gets booted out in October Scheer will be changing many of his policies, it is expected.
@BS - What egg? Your post was cross posted with mine (look at the time stamps) and so I didn't see it. But this is good! Assuming you didn't just get a talking point from somewhere, it means you have gotten yourself a copy and presumably in discussions going forward will be responsive to specifics contained in the report. Concerning the quote, I agree with you that it means basically nothing except that he knew this was bad. I was pointing out that the first part was going to become a meme, and it did.
So, since we've established you have looked at the report, why do you think the meme is the only tangible result?
@STN - I'm not really sure why a way to object to jailmon using "all" like that was to ask him to name four, but sure. You and I agree that Trump is trying to overthrow many of Obama's policies/accomplishments. This is, as you say, common for a government with a different ideology. I don't disagree. Unless the argument is that you think jailmon was trying to imply that Trump doesn't go after things due to any ideological reason, but only because they are associated with Obama? (I don't think that is true of all things Trump does. I do think it motivates him on things he otherwise doesn't care about. )
So, since we've established you have looked at the report, why do you think the meme is the only tangible result?
@STN - I'm not really sure why a way to object to jailmon using "all" like that was to ask him to name four, but sure. You and I agree that Trump is trying to overthrow many of Obama's policies/accomplishments. This is, as you say, common for a government with a different ideology. I don't disagree. Unless the argument is that you think jailmon was trying to imply that Trump doesn't go after things due to any ideological reason, but only because they are associated with Obama? (I don't think that is true of all things Trump does. I do think it motivates him on things he otherwise doesn't care about. )
Isn't the reason obvious? OK, I will spell it out: because that is how Monsieur Valcazar, merb's dedicated analyst-in-residence, summarized the said report.
And now for the record: did I say at any point that "the meme" is the only tangible result? Why don't you drop the habit of putting words into other people's mouth? It is amusing, of course, but only up to a certain limit.
*shrug* Fair enough.
I mean, if you *want* me to summarize the report I can do that instead of point out what was going to become a meme.
But it is good to know you actually acknowledge there are serious, tangible things in there. It's better than I expected. I stand chastened.
I mean, if you *want* me to summarize the report I can do that instead of point out what was going to become a meme.
But it is good to know you actually acknowledge there are serious, tangible things in there. It's better than I expected. I stand chastened.
Bred Sob brings up a good point. Even people such as himself who have been skeptical of it and who don't support democrats are acknowledging there are tangible findings here that should be considered. That I find the report to be very worrisome in what it reveals isn't shocking, so let's look at the common ground here. Given what the report revealed, and even removing it from Trump specifically, what should the US do going forward? Do we need new laws about foreign involvement? Do we need to consider the implications of social media and new tactics in disinformation? How should we respond to Russia? How do we increase cybersecurity in the future? Does the memo about not indicting a sitting president need to be revisited or clarified? Should the statute of limitations for crimes done by a sitting president be tolled?
I have no clue who are those mysterious "people such as myself" you are referring to. I can only speak for myself, so here it goes: I have not acknowledged any such thing. As a matter of fact, aside from a couple of sarcastic remarks (or at least meant as such), I have not acknowledged anything at all. As I said before, why don't you quit putting words in my mouth?
Sure, go right ahead. We could all use a good laugh once in a while.
Well, since you asked so nicely.
The short version is this:
Mueller found that The Russians interfered. He was unable to establish that the Trump Campaign criminally coordinated with the Russians to do that, but that does not mean there is no evidence the Trump Campaign did that.
Mueller wasn't allowed to even consider concluding if the President committed the crime of Obstuction of Justice. He was allowed to exonerate the President if the evidence showed he did not commit the crime. Mueller could not exonerate the President. Instead Mueller listed the evidence relevant to obstruction of justice, so that an authority who can reach a conclusion (Congress or law enforcement once the President is no longer President) will have the evidence to do so if they choose.
Here is a nice 10 minute summary by a lawyer: https://youtu.be/f71Rasj_0JY
The short version is this:
Mueller found that The Russians interfered. He was unable to establish that the Trump Campaign criminally coordinated with the Russians to do that, but that does not mean there is no evidence the Trump Campaign did that.
Mueller wasn't allowed to even consider concluding if the President committed the crime of Obstuction of Justice. He was allowed to exonerate the President if the evidence showed he did not commit the crime. Mueller could not exonerate the President. Instead Mueller listed the evidence relevant to obstruction of justice, so that an authority who can reach a conclusion (Congress or law enforcement once the President is no longer President) will have the evidence to do so if they choose.
Here is a nice 10 minute summary by a lawyer: https://youtu.be/f71Rasj_0JY
I figured you wanted a longer version, though, so I did that too:
The Mueller report is pretty simple (and you should really at least read the executive summaries at the beginnings of the sections, they aren't long) in what it is saying.
Volume 1 - The Russian interference.
The Russians actively messed with the election through criminal acts (the hacking of the DNC and so on) and propoganda/social network manipulation (the troll/bot army in Facebook and such).
Because "collusion" isn't a legal term with a legal definition, Mueller turned to conspiracy law and settled on investigating "coordination" (also not a legally defined term). Coordination would require an agreement between the parties. Note he specifies the standard requires more than just the fact the two sides take actions that are in response to one another.
Mueller concludes that there were numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to get him elected and that the Campaign expected it would benefit from the information the Russians stole and released. So the Russians tried to help Trump and Trump Campaign was happy to talk to the Russians about it and to accept and use the help.
However, Mueller did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Mueller also explains what he means when he says "establish" and "did not establish".
"establish" means substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence.
"did not establish" does NOT mean there was no evidence of something, it only means it did not reach the standard for "esablish" given above.
Then there are about 200 pages of explanations and evidence for the above conclusions.
Volume 2 discusses Obstruction of Justice.
Mueller starts with the whole discussion of whether or not you can indict a sitting president. He concludes that given the OLC memos and DOJ guidelines, he can't. More than that, because he can't, he can't even conclude whether or not a President committed a crime, because it would be unfair for the President to not have access to a court of law to defend himself.
If that's the case, is it worth having an investigation? Mueller says yes, for the following reasons.
1) An investigation can establish that someone is not guilty, and if Mueller found that, he could make that pronouncement and exonerate the president.
2) There is nothing preventing the indictment of a former president.
3) Congress is the constitutional method to address crimes or potential crimes by the President. Based on 2&3, an investigation serves to preserve the evidence and compile it for the use by an appropriate entity.
That settled, Mueller explains the three elements that are common to obstruction of justice statutes: An obstructive event, a nexus between that act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. Then he goes through a couple hundred pages of listing out a slew of potential obstruction of justice actions by the President and the evidence connected to those three elements.
He doesn't really ever state "this satisfies X" because that isn't allowed by the rules he gave himself about accusing the President. He just says what facts the investigation established.
He again points out that if the facts established that the President did NOT obstruct justice, he was free to say that, but that he cannot exonerate the president based on those facts.
There you go. That's the summary. The rest are details on evidence, which you are free to look at because a lot of the document is unredacted.
The Mueller report is pretty simple (and you should really at least read the executive summaries at the beginnings of the sections, they aren't long) in what it is saying.
Volume 1 - The Russian interference.
The Russians actively messed with the election through criminal acts (the hacking of the DNC and so on) and propoganda/social network manipulation (the troll/bot army in Facebook and such).
Because "collusion" isn't a legal term with a legal definition, Mueller turned to conspiracy law and settled on investigating "coordination" (also not a legally defined term). Coordination would require an agreement between the parties. Note he specifies the standard requires more than just the fact the two sides take actions that are in response to one another.
Mueller concludes that there were numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to get him elected and that the Campaign expected it would benefit from the information the Russians stole and released. So the Russians tried to help Trump and Trump Campaign was happy to talk to the Russians about it and to accept and use the help.
However, Mueller did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Mueller also explains what he means when he says "establish" and "did not establish".
"establish" means substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence.
"did not establish" does NOT mean there was no evidence of something, it only means it did not reach the standard for "esablish" given above.
Then there are about 200 pages of explanations and evidence for the above conclusions.
Volume 2 discusses Obstruction of Justice.
Mueller starts with the whole discussion of whether or not you can indict a sitting president. He concludes that given the OLC memos and DOJ guidelines, he can't. More than that, because he can't, he can't even conclude whether or not a President committed a crime, because it would be unfair for the President to not have access to a court of law to defend himself.
If that's the case, is it worth having an investigation? Mueller says yes, for the following reasons.
1) An investigation can establish that someone is not guilty, and if Mueller found that, he could make that pronouncement and exonerate the president.
2) There is nothing preventing the indictment of a former president.
3) Congress is the constitutional method to address crimes or potential crimes by the President. Based on 2&3, an investigation serves to preserve the evidence and compile it for the use by an appropriate entity.
That settled, Mueller explains the three elements that are common to obstruction of justice statutes: An obstructive event, a nexus between that act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. Then he goes through a couple hundred pages of listing out a slew of potential obstruction of justice actions by the President and the evidence connected to those three elements.
He doesn't really ever state "this satisfies X" because that isn't allowed by the rules he gave himself about accusing the President. He just says what facts the investigation established.
He again points out that if the facts established that the President did NOT obstruct justice, he was free to say that, but that he cannot exonerate the president based on those facts.
There you go. That's the summary. The rest are details on evidence, which you are free to look at because a lot of the document is unredacted.
Goes on and on ad nauseum. Most people are fed up with this game, even some Democrats. Burnie Sanders is right. If Democrats continue to play this losing game pushing for impeachment at the expense of discussing important issues facing the country, Trump will be re-elected. What is interesting, they have no idea how to overcome inertia and save face.
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to provide the comic relief! Modern life is quite stressful, so we could all benefit from that.
Of course not. As I said before, the only thing it means is that Mueller, Barr, Putin, and Trump were in cahoots from the start. But I am sure that Congress will get to the bottom of this criminal conspiracy.
Not sure I am prepared to proceed any further. There is a good saying that used to be popular in Siberia: "to find out that the ham has gone rotten, you don't need to eat the entire thing".
Hmm gotta remember that next time I book for an hour and am not satisfied after 10 minutes.
If you are satisfied after 10 minutes you may have a problem and a lot of time to kill.
Saying something goes on ad nauseum is telegraphing that YOU are disinterested, not that anything said there wasn't relevant. Also, it is possible for Democrats to provide oversight of the President and push their legislative agenda simultaneously. As for impeachment, there are many voices but the one voice that matters, Pelosi, is levelheaded and not pushing for that because currently, impeachment is a fool's errand. The only reason we're still in this mess is that contemporary Republicans will abide by anything Trump does; not even Nixon had that kind of protection despite actually having accomplishments.
The fact that the House is still exerting pressure because of the Mueller Report is not about saving face. The same report said Trump attempted to obstruct justice a number of times and was saved only because people actually ignore the orders of the United States President these days. That's how much of a joke even those working for him think he is.
It's always so transparent how anyone advocating for Trump has zero consistent conviction. You know full well if Hillary were President and was guilty of trying to derail an investigation involving her, or still hasn't released her tax returns when releasing taxes is well-established even if not codified, people like you would be shitting bricks. You'd be justified, of course. If you want a lawless country where the President can do whatever he/she pleases or disregard subpoenas, let's agree to that and keep the standards consistent for when a Democrat returns to the Oval Office. I suspect that won't happen, of course because goalposts are always shifted. For example, Republicans made a huge deal of Clinton's private server. What happened last month when it was revealed Jared Kushner used his private email for government business? Crickets.
Lol...that`s a good one Fradi…..but actually you got it backwards.
If I`m satisfied after 10 minutes then that`s a good sign and the balance of our time will be awesome. I`ll write one of my embellished over the top reviews and smile the next morning as I enjoy the memories..
If I`m not satisfied in the first 10 minutes then I ask her to leave.
Now now Falcone, it is unfair to expect moral consistency from these people. Bred Sob isn't going to read the report, or probably even the summary, and is going to be upset when it doesn't go away because we haven't even gotten to the redacted portions yet.
As far as talking about the problems facing the country, the Democrats do that constantly. It is what they did in 2018 and won so many seats, it is what they are doing now. Look at Warren, who has been a machine putting out real policy on real issues. Look at the last few town halls, where I don't think a single candidate spent much time on Trump specifically. People actually interested in policy and solutions should comment on the 2020 thread.
But this is the Trump crime family thread, and Trump's criminality and corruption *is* one of the problems facing the country. The Mueller report doesn't even touch most of that. (The emoluments violations, the tax fraud, the campaign finance violations, the refusal to follow the constitution concerning the rules of congressional oversight, etc.)
Right now the issue is whether they can force Trump to obey his legal obligations. It looks like Trump is basically saying "Oh yeah, you and what army" about refusing everything. He's basically doing an Andrew Jackson riff - "Congress has made their decision, let's see them enforce it." The sad part is that he may win that fight.
As far as talking about the problems facing the country, the Democrats do that constantly. It is what they did in 2018 and won so many seats, it is what they are doing now. Look at Warren, who has been a machine putting out real policy on real issues. Look at the last few town halls, where I don't think a single candidate spent much time on Trump specifically. People actually interested in policy and solutions should comment on the 2020 thread.
But this is the Trump crime family thread, and Trump's criminality and corruption *is* one of the problems facing the country. The Mueller report doesn't even touch most of that. (The emoluments violations, the tax fraud, the campaign finance violations, the refusal to follow the constitution concerning the rules of congressional oversight, etc.)
Right now the issue is whether they can force Trump to obey his legal obligations. It looks like Trump is basically saying "Oh yeah, you and what army" about refusing everything. He's basically doing an Andrew Jackson riff - "Congress has made their decision, let's see them enforce it." The sad part is that he may win that fight.
Similar threads
