• In total there are 28 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 28 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The Art of No Deal

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

DWill wrote:They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
KindaSkolarly wrote:We in America need to decide if we want our country governed by elected officials (no matter how much we may dislike them), or by intelligence spooks.
Yes, I'm surprised that anyone is talking about impeachment at this stage. Trump has not been proven to have committed any crimes. His comment to Comey: "I hope you can let this go” is not a specific request to end the Flynn investigation and not enough to warrant a charge of obstruction of justice. The memo is ultimately Comey's side, not to mention that the memo hasn't been released yet. To discuss impeachment without evidence only feeds into the Republican narrative that there's a witch hunt in progress. It only creates further division in our country. Sorry, you have to wait until Trump actually does something treasonous or illegal before we start an impeachment process, which itself would be very divisive and damaging.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

DWill wrote: Can you expand on that a little? I agree that it would be best for our system if we simply endure a bad president, and not make his incompetence or even his abuse of power reasons to remove him. We're not England. We've endured bad presidents before; we've also had some good ones who abused their powers.
Then why did we bother to go after Nixon or Clinton or Andrew Johnson for that matter? Why bother to go after any president who breaks the law? Hell, why don't we just pass a law and say a president can do anything he wants and no one can do anything about it because that is what you are advocating. Just get rid of checks and balances altogether and let the president be a dictator? If you say it is not what you are advocating (and I'm fairly certain you will), then at what point do we finally tell a corrupt president that he has crossed the line? Who tells him and what is that line?
Even if the Trump presidency is a train wreck, as is looking to be the case, we shouldn't necessarily be talking impeachment.
Because...
But there are limits, clearly, and given what's happened so far, it's unavoidable that the possibility of impeachment will be raised. Democrats will be wise not to beat that drum, though. They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
So we just wait and wait and wait...until he leaves office, right? Right.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

geo wrote:
Yes, I'm surprised that anyone is talking about impeachment at this stage. Trump has not been proven to have committed any crimes.
What???? So, if my wife is found murdered in my house and all the evidence points to me, I should not be charged because no one has proven I did it??? See, you have to charge the person first in order to prove he did it. That's called a trial. But before a trial can be begin, charges have to be filed. You DO know that what the word "impeach" means right? Of course Trump must be impeached, it is the only way his guilt can be established or dismissed.
His comment to Comey: "I hope you can let this go” is not a specific request to end the Flynn investigation and not enough to warrant a charge of obstruction of justice.
Actually it is. Trump did not say, "I don't want to butt in here but Flynn is a good guy and I've never known him to do anything illegal or unethical." That's okay. He can say that. But he cannot say that he hopes Comey will stop the investigation, which is what he meant by "let it go." That's obstruction by iself. And then he fires him--big red flag! Moreover, Trump asked everyone to leave the room before he talked with Comey. That's suspicious. If they were all present, they all become accessories to Trump's obstruction. it indicates that Trump knew what he was doing was illegal. He did the same thing when he wanted Comey's loyalty--he got Comey alone and asked him in private. It was the privacy issue that prompted Comey to make memos in the first place because it was only proof he had of what happened. He didn't like what Trump was doing. It's all the more damning because the Trump administration has a policy against contact between the WH and the Justice Department except in national security matters that this did not fall under that. Also, since Trump had already fired Flynn, why vouch for him as a good guy? Why bother? Yet Trump tries to stop the investigation of a man he fired. That indicates that he feared that the investigation may lead to him or to others he is currently trying to protect. If that's the case then that's illegal.
The memo is ultimately Comey's side, not to mention that the memo hasn't been released yet.


Comey is a law enforcement officer and a law enforcement officer's memos, notes and reports form the foundation of a case against a defendant and are considered admissible evidence. Comey's memos CAN be used as evidence against Trump because he is a sworn law enforcement officer. If a cop busts you and says you tried to bribe him, the court takes that to be the case. Your lawyer will get nowhere telling the cop on the witness stand. "That's just YOUR version of events. My client said it didn't happen." Of course you're going to say that. But the court won't side with you. An LEO's statements are taken as evidence. Now, granted, they don't want to simply pit Comey against Trump so they are going to look for other evidence that Trump has tried these shenanigans on others or admitted to someone that he did this. And they may decide not to press ahead but they must investigate and the very fact that a special counsel has been appointed indicates there is a lot of evidence to sift through to make a case because the fact that Trump was always careful to do this in private would indicate he wanted no witnesses to his actions.
To discuss impeachment without evidence only feeds into the Republican narrative that there's a witch hunt in progress. It only creates further division in our country. Sorry, you have to wait until Trump actually does something treasonous or illegal before we start an impeachment process, which itself would be very divisive and damaging.
No you don't have to wait. That's stupid when you have enough to go after him. They have enough. Trump's exact words on the firing of Comey:

"And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won."

Right there is an admission that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. Doesn't matter if he thought it was a made-up story. It's an official investigation. Then he said he welcomed Mueller to get to the bottom of it. Why didn't he just say that about Comey? Why fire him then? Why not just say, "I welcome Comey to get to the bottom of this." Because he thought firing him would be the end of it. Now he knows it is not. If there is no evidence against him, he has gone through a lot of trouble and hurt himself trying to kill these investigation that he now says he welcomes. Plus there are too many contradictory stories floating around within the White House about Trump's actions. That indicates a cover-up.

No, I'm afraid there needs to be an investigation and that it will end with a recommendation for an impeachment.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

DB Roy wrote: Then why did we bother to go after Nixon or Clinton or Andrew Johnson for that matter? Why bother to go after any president who breaks the law? Hell, why don't we just pass a law and say a president can do anything he wants and no one can do anything about it because that is what you are advocating. Just get rid of checks and balances altogether and let the president be a dictator? If you say it is not what you are advocating (and I'm fairly certain you will), then at what point do we finally tell a corrupt president that he has crossed the line? Who tells him and what is that line?
I wrote, "clearly there are limits," intending to mean that Trump's blunders and incompetency could tip into the territory suitable for an impeachment inquiry by the House--crimes and other proven, serious misdeeds. We don't yet have a parallel with the Nixon situation, and Andrew Johnson belonged to a distant political time after a cataclysmic war. The fact that not even many Democratic politicians are bringing up impeachment tells me that they, too, don't see a strong case for impeachment. This could change quickly, but if the Russia investigation proves inconclusive or Trump suffers just a glancing blow, and by some remarkable change he avoids more scandal, we could be looking at having him around until 2020. We just don't know how things will play out.

Of course, Democrats are well aware that their numbers in the House don't make it likely that they will be able to get the House to look at impeachment. By 2018, they might be in a better position to do that.
Last edited by DWill on Sun May 21, 2017 4:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
KindaSkolarly

1E - BANNED
Doctorate
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:53 pm
7
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

DWill wrote:
KindaSkolarly wrote:What amazes me lately is how the intelligence community in America has convinced so many that elected government should be overthrown on hearsay.

We in America need to decide if we want our country governed by elected officials (no matter how much we may dislike them), or by intelligence spooks.
Can you expand on that a little? ...
I try not to engage in political discussions on the internet anymore. Too many closed minds. Instead I put the time into my fiction, a lot of which is political.

https://www.amazon.com/Now-th-Tim-Mike- ... B006SON65S

That's a link to a collection of my politically inclined stories. If you click the Look Inside feature you can read the first couple of pieces in their entirety.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

DWill wrote: I wrote, "clearly there are limits," intending to mean that Trump's blunders and incompetency could tip into the territory suitable for an impeachment inquiry by the House--crimes and other proven, serious misdeeds. We don't yet have a parallel with the Nixon situation, and Andrew Johnson belonged to a distant political time after a cataclysmic war. The fact that not even many Democratic politicians are bringing up impeachment tells me that they, too, don't see a strong case for impeachment. This could change quickly


Of course, Democrats are well aware that their numbers in the House don't make it likely that they will be able to get the House to look at impeachment. By 2018, they might be in a better position to do that.[/quote]

You seem to be changing what you were saying though. You said:

"I agree that it would be best for our system if we simply endure a bad president, and not make his incompetence or even his abuse of power reasons to remove him."


That's not saying wait until we have evidence, that's saying that even if he broke the law that shouldn't be a reason to remove him. So my question is, what in the hell then would be a good reason to remove him??

You also wrote:

"They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors."

Trump's loyalists are not going to come around. Under no circumstances do we wait for them. If the evidence shows he broke the law, then charge him. I couldn't care less how his loyalists feel about it.
but if the Russia investigation proves inconclusive or Trump suffers just a glancing blow, and by some remarkable change he avoids more scandal, we could be looking at having him around until 2020. We just don't know how things will play out.
That's all the more reason to impeach him. We have three possibilities:

1. We do nothing and let him walk away scot-free.
2. We impeach and the evidence isn't there and he walks way scot-free.
3. We impeach and we get a conviction.

What then do we have to lose via impeachment? He could walk but he'll definitely walk if we do nothing.

But you also have to realize there will be no impeachment no matter what. No evidence would mean no impeachment but strong evidence will force Trump out before there is an impeachment a la Nixon. If he's impeached, he is certain to be convicted because they won't impeach on flimsy evidence.

That's why I think obstruction of justice is the way to go rather than collusion unless the evidence for it is very strong (and I'm willing to bet it is). I don't want to see him walk because he colluded but they couldn't dig up enough to make it stick. Go with obstruction. They have him to dead-to-nuts on that.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

1. We do nothing and let him walk away scot-free.
2. We impeach and the evidence isn't there and he walks way scot-free.
3. We impeach and we get a conviction.
4. We impeach, the evidence isn't sufficient, a major backlash erupts against that process as a failed coup d'etat, and Trump wins a 2nd term. 8 years of Trump!

Don't move on impeachment until votes in the house and senate are fairly certain...
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:1. We do nothing and let him walk away scot-free.
2. We impeach and the evidence isn't there and he walks way scot-free.
3. We impeach and we get a conviction.
4. We impeach, the evidence isn't sufficient, a major backlash erupts against that process as a failed coup d'etat, and Trump wins a 2nd term. 8 years of Trump!
Very unlikely. Trump is wildly unpopular in public opinion polls. He is erratic and unpredictable. Half his base is pissed that he went to Saudi Arabia and kow-towed to their king and gave a moderate speech in contrast to his hardline stance with the travel bans which they think makes him look like he pussied out. The rest of his base thinks he's preaching a sensible message but to everybody else, it is clearly not Trump's message but a prepared speech probably dictated by Rex Tillerson. It clearly doesn't match the man who refused to shake hands with Angela Merkel for allowing Muslim immigrants into her country and the man who hung up on the Australian prime minister who wanted the US to honor their pledge to take some 1250 refugees stuck in limbo on an island. Suddenly, he's in a Muslim country preaching tolerance and peaceful coexistence and sword-dancing as well as selling them billions of dollars of war-making hardware. How much can this man be trusted?

No, I wouldn't expect a backlash. i would expect a lot of people grousing that he got away with Russian collusion. With his terrible popularity in the US and the world, I don't expect for a second that he could be reelected to a second term. I think people have already seen enough and can do without 8 years of this kind of drama. Trump didn't get elected by a landslide; he squeaked through. If so many Bernie crybabies and blacks that were pissed no black democratic candidate was running had bothered to vote, Trump would not be in office. I think those people now realize what a mistake they made to stay home and will turn out in 2020. And virtually all these people believe Trump colluded and won't change their opinion if they fail to convict him for it.
Don't move on impeachment until votes in the house and senate are fairly certain...
Well, that's a silly thing to say since no impeachment can proceed without those votes. It's not like you can proceed to impeach if the House votes no on impeachment.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

Of course we could proceed with the impeachment process even if the House eventually votes no; Trump would not be impeached in that case. And of course we can repeat the case where Clinton was impeached in the House, but not convicted in the Senate. I'm merely saying to avoid both of those cases, hold off until the votes in both chambers are fairly certain. Consider carefully: it's gonna take quite a while before the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are able to vote to impeach Trump.

Although this is gonna accelerate even faster with the bombshell that was just released!
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

...Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

5/22/17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
Holy crap, obviously Trump knows nothing of Watergate where we learned (and therefore Trump was doomed to repeat) two lessons.
1. Do not attempt to use the CIA or other agencies to shut down an investigation, the "smoking gun" of the Nixon administration.
2. The cover up is worse than the crime.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The Art of No Deal

Unread post

That's what I'm saying: Trump is expending a lot of effort trying to shut down an investigation that he claims is a made-up story. His actions are only explainable if he has something to hide. I mean, all 17 of our intelligence agencies say there was collusion. Now how can that be if it's a made-up story? Why would Trump want Comey to lay off the investigation of Flynn, why does Flynn want immunity for his testimony and documents, why did Trump want Comey's loyalty and why would he then fire him when Comey said no? There HAS to be something there Trump is desperate for us not to see. Why would Trump want Coats and Rogers to deny evidence that he insists doesn't exist? And since they wouldn't comply, that pretty much tells you there IS evidence.

As for the cover up being worse than the crime, that may well be! That's why I think they might do better to go after an obstruction charge. That's kind of a slam-dunk. They can level collusion and obstruction and that might be too much for the republicans in Congress to deal with and that might force them to approach Trump about the need to resign. However you cut it, though, it's gonna git ugly!
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”