Tiger337 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 31 minutes ago, ewsieg said: The second one was more egregious, but in terms of conviction, I don't think it was more obvious, at least with the evidence we had at the time and the fact that any trial would need to be rushed. I think it was more of a 'we know, you know we know, you know that we know that you know that we know, type thing. At the time, the only supported evidence was how long it took him to issue a statement and reports that he was enjoying watching it on TV. 7 Republicans senators voted to convict him. That is remarkable given the current environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: 7 Republicans senators voted to convict him. That is remarkable given the current environment. It was by far the most votes in an impeachment by members of the President's party in history. Beating the previous high set by Trump's first impeachment (from Mitt Romney). I think that alone speaks to how slam-dunk the case was. Edited January 21, 2022 by mtutiger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 53 minutes ago, ewsieg said: First one was related to the Ukraine call. Nothing came of the Mueller report, IMO, because as Archie mentioned, there was no evidence Trump colluded, the media and the left wanted to believe it and grasped at any straw to help validate that belief. As such, all the focus was on colluding. He could have been impeached based on the obstruction and I think Mueller would have had a better chance to pursue that if the left hadn't drummed it up into something it wasn't. Similar to Clinton, he wasn't impeached for getting a BJ, but lying about it under oath. LMAO. At least you're right about the Ukraine call being what he was impeached for. The rest of this is fiction. The Mueller literally report made no attempt to find evidence of "collusion" and explicitly stated so within the report. So when you say all of the focus was on "collusion" like you explicitly stated, you're absolutely incorrect. "Collusion" is not a crime and therefore was not within the scope of a prosecutor. However, they did attempt to identify evidence of CONSPIRACY which is a crime, but concluded that he did not have enough evidence to charge and even if he did, he couldn't anyways because of the OLC memo. Quote “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said. But: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” Furthermore- When you said all of the focus was on colluding, you also were also wrong b/c the conspiracy part was only the first half of the report. There's a second half of the report that was about Trump's obstruction of justice. So obviously "all the focus was on colluding" is false - there's literally no part of the report focused on colluding. The second part is loaded with evidence of criminality. For this part of the report, and b/c of the OLC memo, Mueller punted to congress b/c it's their responsibility through impeachment mechanism to do something about it. I have to ask, when you say that "all the focus was on colluding" - did you read the report? Because not only does it explicitly not address collusion but also focuses on a bunch of stuff other than collusion. You couldn't be more inaccurate in your statements about this report. The report itself literally addresses the fact that it doesn't address collusion. And here you are saying that's all it focused on. Hilarious chief. Edited January 21, 2022 by pfife 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 43 minutes ago, Edman85 said: That collusion red herring is still doing a lot of work. been gainfully employed since 2018. It's had good performance though as you can see from some posts here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 58 minutes ago, ewsieg said: First one was related to the Ukraine call. Nothing came of the Mueller report, IMO, because as Archie mentioned, there was no evidence Trump colluded, the media and the left wanted to believe it and grasped at any straw to help validate that belief. As such, all the focus was on colluding. He could have been impeached based on the obstruction and I think Mueller would have had a better chance to pursue that if the left hadn't drummed it up into something it wasn't. Similar to Clinton, he wasn't impeached for getting a BJ, but lying about it under oath. The second one was more egregious, but in terms of conviction, I don't think it was more obvious, at least with the evidence we had at the time and the fact that any trial would need to be rushed. I think it was more of a 'we know, you know we know, you know that we know that you know that we know, type thing. At the time, the only supported evidence was how long it took him to issue a statement and reports that he was enjoying watching it on TV. This Guiliani stuff though...interesting. he wasnt impeached because the republicans wouldnt let him be impeached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I don't want to go into the whole collusion thing again. In terms of the collusion that folks believe Trump did, there were crimes there, regardless if the collusion portion was or not or collusion is even the right word for it. Nearly all the claims that the left touted and believed for so many years turned out to be untrue or simply not to the degree they believed them to be. If the report showed what the left believed it would, Barr's redirection would not have lasted long. Still though, it's valuable to the left to play with the idea that Trump was the first to steal an election, without actually saying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 18 minutes ago, mtutiger said: It was by far the most votes in an impeachment by members of the President's party in history. Beating the previous high set by Trump's first impeachment (from Mitt Romney). I think that alone speaks to how slam-dunk the case was. was also the only time a member of a president's own party voted for conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I don't want to go into the whole collusion thing again. In terms of the collusion that folks believe Trump did, there were crimes there, regardless if the collusion portion was or not or collusion is even the right word for it. Nearly all the claims that the left touted and believed for so many years turned out to be untrue or simply not to the degree they believed them to be. If the report showed what the left believed it would, Barr's redirection would not have lasted long. Still though, it's valuable to the left to play with the idea that Trump was the first to steal an election, without actually saying it. Did you read the report? It's a smart move for you to bow out of a conversation you clearly know nothing about. This is a new leaf. Edited January 21, 2022 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 13 minutes ago, pfife said: I have to ask, when you say that "all the focus was on colluding" - did you read the report? Because not only does it explicitly not address collusion but also focuses on a bunch of stuff other than collusion. You couldn't be more inaccurate in your statements about this report. I'm not trying to play legal jargon word games like Giuliani. To the legal lay person like me, there isn't much difference between collusion and conspiracy. Looking up the definitions, they seem pretty close to me. From Oxford: collusion - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So while Mueller was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, the media was focused on Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy. When that didn't pan out, the result was a dud, because again, everyone expected Mueller (through all the 'leaks') to be focusing in on collusion. I stand by my statement that the focus of the investigation was not on obstruction even if 1/2 of the report is about obstruction. In fact, if Mueller went into the investigation with a focus on obstruction, to me that would nullify the report any further. Any investigator that plans to just keep investigating until they can put an obstruction charge in place is abusing their authority. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cowan Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Clinton still makes me laugh. He did the finger point at the camera (it later became Rafael Palmeiro's signature move) and said in short staccato bursts "I did not have improper relations with that woman." Being impeached for lying was so unfair, because he wasn't lying lol! He genuinely did not think that there was anything improper about getting a BJ from a young woman over whom he held immense power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I stand by my statement that the focus of the investigation was not on obstruction even if 1/2 of the report is about obstruction. In fact, if Mueller went into the investigation with a focus on obstruction, to me that would nullify the report any further. Any investigator that plans to just keep investigating until they can put an obstruction charge in place is abusing their authority. The logical end to this argument would be that obstruction shouldn't be a crime at all IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, pfife said: Did you read the report? It's a smart move for you to bow out of a conversation you clearly know nothing about. This is a new leaf. I read the report. When you tune out all of the noise (ie. "the media", "the left"), the report was still legitimately damning. And no doubt Barr's letter badly misrepresented it's findings. Edited January 21, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 9 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I'm not trying to play legal jargon word games like Giuliani. To the legal lay person like me, there isn't much difference between collusion and conspiracy. Looking up the definitions, they seem pretty close to me. From Oxford: collusion - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So while Mueller was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, the media was focused on Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy. When that didn't pan out, the result was a dud, because again, everyone expected Mueller (through all the 'leaks') to be focusing in on collusion. I stand by my statement that the focus of the investigation was not on obstruction even if 1/2 of the report is about obstruction. In fact, if Mueller went into the investigation with a focus on obstruction, to me that would nullify the report any further. Any investigator that plans to just keep investigating until they can put an obstruction charge in place is abusing their authority. so by your logic any investigation can be thwarted if the target just obstructs since the focus of the investigation wasn't originally obstruction. The follows the Trump and GOP playbook to just ignore all inquiries and let things burn out and say "it's old news now, you got nothing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 38 minutes ago, mtutiger said: It was by far the most votes in an impeachment by members of the President's party in history. Beating the previous high set by Trump's first impeachment (from Mitt Romney). I think that alone speaks to how slam-dunk the case was. Please note that i'm not saying he shouldn't have been found guilty. What i'm saying is at the time, I don't think the evidence that we had in hand, justified it. I think it was mostly emotional. I know I wanted him voted out. I'll also will admit that part of justification for wanting him out was 1) he should have been gone for obstruction which he wasn't even impeached for and 2) he should have been found guilty for the interference for the Ukraine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 36 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I stand by my statement that the focus of the investigation was not on obstruction even if 1/2 of the report is about obstruction. In fact, if Mueller went into the investigation with a focus on obstruction, to me that would nullify the report any further. Any investigator that plans to just keep investigating until they can put an obstruction charge in place is abusing their authority. LMAO. So you're just going to refuse to accept reality and that's your argument. Way to be wrong but strong chief. Not that you actually care about the report, as evidenced by your posts regarding the report - but Mueller didn't go "into the investigation with focus on obstruction" as you stated and I quoted - the obstruction in the report was obstruction OF THE INVESTIGATION HE WAS CONDUCTING IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE REPORT. It's quite clear to me you have not read the report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 33 minutes ago, mtutiger said: I read the report. When you tune out all of the noise (ie. "the media", "the left"), the report was still legitimately damning. And no doubt Barr's letter badly misrepresented it's findings. I read it too and I also agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, oblong said: so by your logic any investigation can be thwarted if the target just obstructs since the focus of the investigation wasn't originally obstruction. The follows the Trump and GOP playbook to just ignore all inquiries and let things burn out and say "it's old news now, you got nothing" I have no idea how you could read that from what I said. My argument was that the media and the left wanted/hoped for a conspiracy/collusion/RICO/something that's illegal in regards to Trump and Russia. So when the report came back with stating that was not found, it fell flat. A symptom of overpromising. The initial focus of the investigation was not obstruction. Obviously as the investigation went on, it became a major focus (because Trump obstructed) which as pfife points out, it was a large focus of the report. I simply said it was not a focus. Maybe it would be better to say it was not the original focus, which I think I was pointing out above, not that you just get to get away with something if you obstruct. A cop may clock you at 10mph over the speed limit. He now has a reason to pull you over. If you refuse to show legally required documentation when he comes to the door, now he has a different issue that requires more work to deal with. It could escalate to the point that very little in the cops report mentions speeding. Still, the initial focus was speeding, despite other issues possibly dominating the report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 10 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: That's a terrifying amount of power for the President to think he has an and even more terrifying act for him to attempt to do. There was no evidence of wrong doing in Antrim County, MI and when they did a hand recount of all the ballots Trump picked up 12 votes out of 15,692 total votes tabulated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I seriously don't think you understand what the word obstruction means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: That's a terrifying amount of power for the President to think he has an and even more terrifying act for him to attempt to do. There was no evidence of wrong doing in Antrim County, MI and when they did a hand recount of all the ballots Trump picked up 12 votes out of 15,692 total votes tabulated. Yes. What freaks me out is in a lot of ways, the election, and potentially the government, were saved by the good character of a few people. The GOP knows who they were and are not going to let that happen again. It's really a bad moment in time for the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 13 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I have no idea how you could read that from what I said. My argument was that the media and the left wanted/hoped for a conspiracy/collusion/RICO/something that's illegal in regards to Trump and Russia. So when the report came back with stating that was not found, it fell flat. A symptom of overpromising. The initial focus of the investigation was not obstruction. Obviously as the investigation went on, it became a major focus (because Trump obstructed) which as pfife points out, it was a large focus of the report. I simply said it was not a focus. Maybe it would be better to say it was not the original focus, which I think I was pointing out above, not that you just get to get away with something if you obstruct. A cop may clock you at 10mph over the speed limit. He now has a reason to pull you over. If you refuse to show legally required documentation when he comes to the door, now he has a different issue that requires more work to deal with. It could escalate to the point that very little in the cops report mentions speeding. Still, the initial focus was speeding, despite other issues possibly dominating the report. dude you literally said collusion was the only focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, pfife said: Yes. What freaks me out is in a lot of ways, the election, and potentially the government, were saved by the good character of a few people. The GOP knows who they were and are not going to let that happen again. It's really a bad moment in time for the country. For those that were appointed or elected that were the good actors, like the Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy in this case, it's likely they will go after them in the next election or when they are up for a reappointment. You'll never see another VP like Pence nominated to run with Trump again. I would be shocked that the VP vetting process for Trump in 2024 doesn't include questions about the 2020 elections results and overturning/tampering with future elections. We're a backsliding democracy thanks to the MAGA movement according to at least one report I read out of a European think tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, pfife said: dude you literally said collusion was the only focus. Yes, I said that. I should have clarified better apparently as I was trying to say that was the entire focus of the media/left. It was overpromised by the media and the left as collusion/conspiracy and when Mueller's report, that focused on Russian interference came out and said he absolutely saw Russian interference, but didn't see Trump colluding (despite some unethical behavior) it fell flat. It was still grounds for impeachment based on the obstruction that was identified by Mueller as he was investigating. editing to add this as I went back to see how bad I butchered my initial post and it seems to be on target with what I have been saying. Quote ...the media and the left wanted to believe it and grasped at any straw to help validate that belief. As such, all the focus was on colluding. Edited January 21, 2022 by ewsieg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines This would have been an absolute shit-show.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.