Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

All the president's men

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • All the president's men

    Manafort and Cohen are now officially felons which makes them pardon worthy I guess. How can we let such fine men rot in jail while Hillary Clinton walks around as free as a bird?

  • #2
    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    Manafort and Cohen are now officially felons which makes them pardon worthy I guess. How can we let such fine men rot in jail while Hillary Clinton walks around as free as a bird?
    Genius lawyer, Rudolf Guilliani, has worked out a perfect defense. Truth isn't truth, or something. You see, in the alternate truth universe, there was no collusion. However, if there was collusion, it was committed by Hillary, who somehow used the GOP campaign staff for the current prez to collude with the Russians. That's the truth. Or something

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      Genius lawyer, Rudolf Guilliani, has worked out a perfect defense. Truth isn't truth, or something. You see, in the alternate truth universe, there was no collusion. However, if there was collusion, it was committed by Hillary, who somehow used the GOP campaign staff for the current prez to collude with the Russians. That's the truth. Or something
      Rudy basically violated one of my secular ten commandments of conservativism - Though shalt not give really crappy/unclear arguments in support of otherwise sensible positions (which is a shame, because in days of old, Ruddy was pretty articulate)

      What he was (inartfully) referring to is the in response to those who claim (falsely) that an innocent person has nothing to fear from a "perjury" trap. The argument goes that if you are innocent, you have no reason to lie, so if you just tell the truth, there is no "perjury trap". This is demonstrably flawed logic. The point he was making is that innocence and honesty are no guarantee of not being charged with perjury or lying, in that if a prosecutor has two contradictory statements, the prosecuter gets to decide which one is "true", and will often show confirmation bias in choosing to give the benefit of doubt to whoever's version. This is particularly pernicious in the case of "independent/special" counsels, who are often appointed with a target, but no actual probable cause for there being a specific criminal act that is to be investigated.

      For a long time I have been trying to come up with some basic guidelines for limiting the abuse by prosecutors of "process crimes".

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

        Rudy basically violated one of my secular ten commandments of conservativism - Though shalt not give really crappy/unclear arguments in support of otherwise sensible positions (which is a shame, because in days of old, Ruddy was pretty articulate)

        What he was (inartfully) referring to is the in response to those who claim (falsely) that an innocent person has nothing to fear from a "perjury" trap. The argument goes that if you are innocent, you have no reason to lie, so if you just tell the truth, there is no "perjury trap". This is demonstrably flawed logic. The point he was making is that innocence and honesty are no guarantee of not being charged with perjury or lying, in that if a prosecutor has two contradictory statements, the prosecuter gets to decide which one is "true", and will often show confirmation bias in choosing to give the benefit of doubt to whoever's version. This is particularly pernicious in the case of "independent/special" counsels, who are often appointed with a target, but no actual probable cause for there being a specific criminal act that is to be investigated.

        For a long time I have been trying to come up with some basic guidelines for limiting the abuse by prosecutors of "process crimes".
        Of all the legal stories yesterday I think the one that most threatens Trump immediately is his guilty plea in breaking the law at the direction of Mr. Trump.Explain that one Senor Rudy.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          Of all the legal stories yesterday I think the one that most threatens Trump immediately is his guilty plea in breaking the law at the direction of Mr. Trump.Explain that one Senor Rudy.
          Even if this is proven its not enough to get Trump turfed from office. It would be a breach of campaign financing rules which usually results in a fine of a few thousand bucks.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brexx View Post

            Even if this is proven its not enough to get Trump turfed from office. It would be a breach of campaign financing rules which usually results in a fine of a few thousand bucks.
            It won't get him booted ... it won't even get him charged (or accused by anyone other than redrover).

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

              It won't get him booted ... it won't even get him charged (or accused by anyone other than redrover).
              ...Because it wasn't a crime, or if it was a crime, it wasn't a serious crime. Even if it is a violation of a federal law, the president doesn't need to take that seriously, because someone probably broke the law without his permission. Link:
              Trump on Wednesday insisted that Michael Cohen's guilty plea regarding campaign finance violations is unfair, because those actions are "not a crime." Ignoring the fact that breaking campaign finance laws is indeed a crime, Trump also breezed past Cohen's other counts of tax evasion.
              http://theweek.com/speedreads/791684...-really-crimes

              It won't get him booted, because the US Senate is GOP majority. Thank goodness for the rule of law. Or something.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                ...Because it wasn't a crime, or if it was a crime, it wasn't a serious crime. Even if it is a violation of a federal law, the president doesn't need to take that seriously, because someone probably broke the law without his permission. Link:
                http://theweek.com/speedreads/791684...-really-crimes

                It won't get him booted, because the US Senate is GOP majority. Thank goodness for the rule of law. Or something.

                Yeah, remember when democrats had millions in clearly illegal campaign contributions coming in from a belligerent foreign power (China) in the 1990s and that was just no big deal?

                If the campaign finance "violation" were the only thing that Cohen was charged with, no remotely competent attorney (which may exclude Cohen himself) would ever counsel a client to take a deal that amounted to more than a firm scolding and obligatory (but minimal) fine--and then only to avoid the actual cost of a trial and/or appeal, because the prosecutorial theory of the crime is ridiculous and would more likely than not never be prosecuted in and of itself to begin with. No, this was a non-crime that Cohen was basically blackmailed into accepting to get a truly sweetheart deal on other crimes. The only reason for which is that unlike this manufactured "crime", none of the other ones provide even a contrived criminal "predicate" to taint Trump. Given the speciousness of the supposed "crime" and the prosecutorial history of the most closely linked fact patterns is one of relatively failure, or merely fines levied against the campaign, this plea deal is clear evidence that Mueller views his mandate to be getting Trump by whatever means necessary, and not getting to the truth of Russian attempted interference in the 2016 (which should have been limited solely to supposed "collusion", other than which there was no need for a special counsel)

                In other fake news, One of the idiots (and two of his idiot guests) at MSNBC demonstrated his ignorance of the Constitution (and went uncorrected by his two guests (presidential historian Jon Meacham and National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen, neither of whom pointed out his inaccurate reporting) by totally botching the constitutional requirements and the basic math for impeachment and removal: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...-process-wrong. Pretty friggin' pathetic, but not surprising.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  And here is some food for thought to those irresponsible and cynical swamp dwellers who are perfectly happy with pushing absurd legal theories to GET TRUMP!

                  It has now been argued by Mueller (and supported by the entire get Trump establishment) that it is a criminal violation of campaign finance laws to arrange payment of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) for politically embarassing (but not illegal) activity. In this case, consensual alleged sex, for which one of the consenting party's silence is paid for through an NDA, if it is not reported as a campaign contribution (even if it is ultimately paid by the candidate themselves).

                  Soooo, why doesn't that make all payments made on behalf of members of congress to settle sexual harassement claims (using taxpayer funds no less), which were never reported on campaign finance disclosures criminal violations of campaign finance laws (and since it is now established that these payments supposedly represent "campaign contributions", criminal missappropriation of public funds for campaign purposes?

                  Let the further taffypull-like contortions to differentiate these fact patterns begin!

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    It has long been my assumption that these "democrats" (whom I now just call "democrats" because "democrats who are still butt-hurt over Hillary losing" is just too laborious to type out every time I refer to them) do not realize exactly what hell they are calling down on themselves by this ... ALL this behavior.

                    They call for Trumps ouster on, at best, specious accusations without considering what those accusations portend for most of them (the old "point a finger at me and there are at least three fingers pointing back at you" dilemma). They deify people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and David Hogg, not understanding what their childish dogma will mean for them and their lofty status or their armed guards (although likely also believe THEY will be part of the elite ruling class, no doubt). They prop up people with a very loose grasp on reality like Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi without regard to the perception of the people of these of the alzheimers set in congress... and many other manifestations of what I believe is born of their general hatred of ... possibly fear of Donald Trump.

                    I am even starting to see a "so what" kind of reaction to those Obama is now starting to support.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post


                      Yeah, remember when democrats had millions in clearly illegal campaign contributions coming in from a belligerent foreign power (China) in the 1990s and that was just no big deal?

                      If the campaign finance "violation" were the only thing that Cohen was charged with, no remotely competent attorney (which may exclude Cohen himself) would ever counsel a client to take a deal that amounted to more than a firm scolding and obligatory (but minimal) fine--and then only to avoid the actual cost of a trial and/or appeal, because the prosecutorial theory of the crime is ridiculous and would more likely than not never be prosecuted in and of itself to begin with. No, this was a non-crime that Cohen was basically blackmailed into accepting to get a truly sweetheart deal on other crimes. The only reason for which is that unlike this manufactured "crime", none of the other ones provide even a contrived criminal "predicate" to taint Trump. Given the speciousness of the supposed "crime" and the prosecutorial history of the most closely linked fact patterns is one of relatively failure, or merely fines levied against the campaign, this plea deal is clear evidence that Mueller views his mandate to be getting Trump by whatever means necessary, and not getting to the truth of Russian attempted interference in the 2016 (which should have been limited solely to supposed "collusion", other than which there was no need for a special counsel)

                      In other fake news, One of the idiots (and two of his idiot guests) at MSNBC demonstrated his ignorance of the Constitution (and went uncorrected by his two guests (presidential historian Jon Meacham and National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen, neither of whom pointed out his inaccurate reporting) by totally botching the constitutional requirements and the basic math for impeachment and removal: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...-process-wrong. Pretty friggin' pathetic, but not surprising.
                      If you can search my opinion on impeachment, you'll find that I supported the impeachment and conviction of Bill Cllinton. So, count me as one lefty who would throw one of his own under the bus for good reason -and allowing more than casual aid from a foreign power in campaign is good reason. The GOP also caved on Clinton (along with fellow Dems), most likely to preserve a future GOP president's right to lie (obstruction of justice) to a formal investigation by Congress, particularly about his whoring activities. Those guys are downright clairvoyant. If you have another "whataboutist" defense, please add it on.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        If you can search my opinion on impeachment, you'll find that I supported the impeachment and conviction of Bill Cllinton. So, count me as one lefty who would throw one of his own under the bus for good reason -and allowing more than casual aid from a foreign power in campaign is good reason. The GOP also caved on Clinton (along with fellow Dems), most likely to preserve a future GOP president's right to lie (obstruction of justice) to a formal investigation by Congress, particularly about his whoring activities. Those guys are downright clairvoyant. If you have another "whataboutist" defense, please add it on.
                        The first distinction between this and the Clinton impeachment is that there was actually a clear criminal predicate (perjury) that was brought to the Independent Counsel (not a result of their initial investigation) for which the IC (under the applicable statute) requested clearance to expand its jurisdiction to include. Here, there was no criminal predicate upon which the special counsel was established in the first place.

                        Second, the theory of perjury in the Clinton case was extremely straightforward, he deliberately lied under oath about facts material to the case. Whether Clinton's actions violated that clearly established theory of perjury law was a matter of fact for adjudication. In this case, the underlying theory of the crime (that these payments, either by a third party, or by a candidate themselves) to make payments for entering into non-Disclosure agreements regarding actions (alleged or actual) that may be politically embarrassing is not a clearly established interpretation (and flat out contradicted by many legal scholars, lawyers, and former regulators familiar with the statutes and regulations).

                        One other important distinction (which I have made elsewhere) since IMPEACHMENT is not the great obsession and hysteria. With regard to once again having "obstruction of justice" thrown into the mix. I do not believe that any President may be constitutionally charged with obstructing for any actions they take pursuant to their inherent constitutional authority under Article II, period. So the firing of James Comey cannot be a criminal act because no statute may in any way limit the inherent powers of any branch of the government (save for where the Constitution explicitly permits for it). However, that does not preclude impeaching a President if if the Congress deems any particular exercise of inherent powers to have been abused. If that is the case, then a President may be impeached and removed if convicted by the Senate for abuse of that power, but it still remains non-criminal in nature. One additional distinction to be clear about, is actions taken by a president pursuant to those powers inherent or granted to him by virtue of his office, and those falling outside. The President's power to fire a subordinate officer of the Executive Branch cannot be constitutionally proscribed by statute (i.e. Comey's firing) as "obstruction of justice". An action taken outside the President's inherent powers MAY be criminally prosecutable as obstruction of justice (after they are no longer in office, not while they are in office), such as asking others to lie under oath.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                          The first distinction between this and the Clinton impeachment is that there was actually a clear criminal predicate (perjury) that was brought to the Independent Counsel (not a result of their initial investigation) for which the IC (under the applicable statute) requested clearance to expand its jurisdiction to include. Here, there was no criminal predicate upon which the special counsel was established in the first place.

                          Second, the theory of perjury in the Clinton case was extremely straightforward, he deliberately lied under oath about facts material to the case. Whether Clinton's actions violated that clearly established theory of perjury law was a matter of fact for adjudication. In this case, the underlying theory of the crime (that these payments, either by a third party, or by a candidate themselves) to make payments for entering into non-Disclosure agreements regarding actions (alleged or actual) that may be politically embarrassing is not a clearly established interpretation (and flat out contradicted by many legal scholars, lawyers, and former regulators familiar with the statutes and regulations).

                          One other important distinction (which I have made elsewhere) since IMPEACHMENT is not the great obsession and hysteria. With regard to once again having "obstruction of justice" thrown into the mix. I do not believe that any President may be constitutionally charged with obstructing for any actions they take pursuant to their inherent constitutional authority under Article II, period. So the firing of James Comey cannot be a criminal act because no statute may in any way limit the inherent powers of any branch of the government (save for where the Constitution explicitly permits for it). However, that does not preclude impeaching a President if if the Congress deems any particular exercise of inherent powers to have been abused. If that is the case, then a President may be impeached and removed if convicted by the Senate for abuse of that power, but it still remains non-criminal in nature. One additional distinction to be clear about, is actions taken by a president pursuant to those powers inherent or granted to him by virtue of his office, and those falling outside. The President's power to fire a subordinate officer of the Executive Branch cannot be constitutionally proscribed by statute (i.e. Comey's firing) as "obstruction of justice". An action taken outside the President's inherent powers MAY be criminally prosecutable as obstruction of justice (after they are no longer in office, not while they are in office), such as asking others to lie under oath.
                          How does Clinton's case compare with the current prez? If he refuses to testify, or if he is indicted, then perjures himself.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            How does Clinton's case compare with the current prez? If he refuses to testify, or if he is indicted, then perjures himself.
                            First the criminal side of this. I don't think a sitting president can be compelled to testify on the initiative of a subordinate officer of the Executive branch (Clinton's case, which I think a case could be made was wrongly decided, the compulsory appearance for the deposition was triggered by a civil suit...actors outside of the government and the executive branch). If he voluntarily chooses to answer questions, he would be open to perjury charges (after he is out of office).

                            On the impeachment side, it is a wholly political act and process, so as a practical matter an impeachable offense is whatever 50 percent +1 of current House members and 2/3 of the Senate deem to be impeachable and justifying removal from office (respectively). This is particularly the case with regard to abuse of power (including so-called "obstruction") which would again, not rendered these acts criminal, but could (in my view) be justifiable grounds for impeachment. In this particular case, I do not see it yet (and believe me, I would not at all mind if Trump left office and Pence assumed the Presidency). Much like the Mueller investigation, impeachment is a goal in search of a justification.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                              First the criminal side of this. I don't think a sitting president can be compelled to testify on the initiative of a subordinate officer of the Executive branch (Clinton's case, which I think a case could be made was wrongly decided, the compulsory appearance for the deposition was triggered by a civil suit...actors outside of the government and the executive branch). If he voluntarily chooses to answer questions, he would be open to perjury charges (after he is out of office).

                              On the impeachment side, it is a wholly political act and process, so as a practical matter an impeachable offense is whatever 50 percent +1 of current House members and 2/3 of the Senate deem to be impeachable and justifying removal from office (respectively). This is particularly the case with regard to abuse of power (including so-called "obstruction") which would again, not rendered these acts criminal, but could (in my view) be justifiable grounds for impeachment. In this particular case, I do not see it yet (and believe me, I would not at all mind if Trump left office and Pence assumed the Presidency). Much like the Mueller investigation, impeachment is a goal in search of a justification.
                              What's the big deal about perjury? he commits perjury many times everyday so who is going to care if he tells a few little white lies to Mueller. Universally Trump voters believe he is above the law. He's putting guys on the supreme court to test that theory. I can't wait to hear the howls if these guys turn out to love the law more than they love Trump. II knew they were going to betray me. I never would have given them a job for life. I d have the right to fire them don't I?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X