The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-20-2019, 09:20 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?
It's highly improbable, but law scholars and political junkies are speculating about it.April 17, 2016
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 09:41 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
Constitutional experts of all political stripes say it’s surprising for impeachment talk to bubble up this early—but then Trump has been throwing around some surprising ideas for a leading candidate, calling the Geneva Conventions a “problem” and pitching policies that many see as violating international law. “What he’s stated in my judgment would be clearly impeachable offenses,” said Fein, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official who worked on the Bill Clinton impeachment effort. Likewise, Yale Law School lecturer and military justice expert Eugene Fidell offered a similar prediction for Trump from the left. “He’s certainly said things, which if followed through on, would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors,” Fidell said.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 10:01 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Full disclosure: Nobody we talked to said this was likely without a series of cascading events first unfolding. Impeachment is, after all, a rarely used and highly disruptive tactic that would throttle pretty much everything else happening from a federal policy perspective in the country. It would take an unprecedented mix of popular sentiment and raw power politics at the very highest levels to actually succeed at toppling a new president, and it’s far from certain that even Trump could manage to be so offensive that he clears that bar.
He has ordered federal contractors to start building the wall between the United States and Mexico, though neither Mexico nor the U.S. Congress will pay for it. Trump has directed the National Guard to patrol Detroit, Chicago, New York and other neighborhoods with large Muslim populations, and accusations are swirling that he is illegally rounding up suspected Islamic extremists and shipping them off to special detention centers, including the recently reopened Alcatraz Island and to several of the World War II-era internment camps the U.S. government used for Japanese-Americans. Despite the counsel of his foreign policy and military advisers, Trump has commanded the CIA to resume waterboarding and other forms of torture to obtain information about imminent attacks. Inside the intelligence and defense communities, a full-blown internal war has broken out as some interrogators and high-ranking officials follow Trump’s orders, while others refuse to cooperate. Some resign their posts and begin leaking details to the media and Congress. Trump has also ordered airstrikes on the family members of known terrorists from Afghanistan to Libya. CNN airs live coverage of the bombings and protests sweep across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe as the death toll rises for the parents, siblings, spouses and children of ISIL and Al Qaeda fighters. At the United Nations, a resolution is passed, calling for Trump to be tried on war crimes.
...
Most importantly, the polls have turned against Trump. He still has his most passionate supporters, but the honeymoon in the Oval Office is clearly over. Enough of the American public had voted to hire Trump—he’d captured the Electoral College in November 2016 without winning either the popular vote or a plurality—hoping he’d make America great again. But now the country is clearly dissatisfied with how he’s going about doing it. And as the bad headlines keep piling up, Trump’s once-vaunted poll numbers are anything but yuuuuge.
...
Next come the Republicans. Many were never big fans of Trump’s to begin with, like 2016 primary rival Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who Trump had insulted for being captured during the Vietnam War. The Republican senators are first on their side of the aisle in calling for his impeachment, and that opens the anti-Trump floodgates as fellow GOP colleagues who had stayed silent on the new president no longer fret about the damage it could do to their own careers.
...
Leave it to Trump, however, to bring the Senate together. Democrats who recaptured their majority in November are unanimously in favor of ending his presidency. And with a sizable number of House Republicans already on record supporting impeachment, it isn’t so difficult to round up the 15 or so Senate Republicans who are likewise willing to make history and convict Trump.
...
Most importantly, the polls have turned against Trump. He still has his most passionate supporters, but the honeymoon in the Oval Office is clearly over. Enough of the American public had voted to hire Trump—he’d captured the Electoral College in November 2016 without winning either the popular vote or a plurality—hoping he’d make America great again. But now the country is clearly dissatisfied with how he’s going about doing it. And as the bad headlines keep piling up, Trump’s once-vaunted poll numbers are anything but yuuuuge.
...
Next come the Republicans. Many were never big fans of Trump’s to begin with, like 2016 primary rival Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who Trump had insulted for being captured during the Vietnam War. The Republican senators are first on their side of the aisle in calling for his impeachment, and that opens the anti-Trump floodgates as fellow GOP colleagues who had stayed silent on the new president no longer fret about the damage it could do to their own careers.
...
Leave it to Trump, however, to bring the Senate together. Democrats who recaptured their majority in November are unanimously in favor of ending his presidency. And with a sizable number of House Republicans already on record supporting impeachment, it isn’t so difficult to round up the 15 or so Senate Republicans who are likewise willing to make history and convict Trump.
Scholars, nor this author, never predicted be would be impeached for going to the courts for a ruling -- a right granted to all former presidents who faced impeachment. They never predicted he would be impeached for inquiring about crimes/corruption inside our government.
Scholars, and fellow democrats, thought the President's impeachment would be a slam dunk based on his actions. They never predicted he would be impeached as a final "Hail Mary" on the flimsiest of Trumped up reasons to try win back voter during this election cycle, while impeaching him for trying to get an unfair advantage during the election.
What they did get correct [scholars, democrats, media] was that he was going to be impeached, because after they were so goddamn wrong about the election in 2016, they all knew this would be the only way to defeat him -- you know, as an insurance policy. viva le resistance.
We all knew with 100% certainty it was going to happen back in 2016.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 10:08 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
meanwhile:
TOOBIN: Can I just say to my twin brother that I don't believe that poll for one second.
CAMEROTA: What part don't you believe?
TOOBIN: The 90 to 77 percent. I, you know, it's just I don't believe it. Like, it makes no sense that that number would change like that.
CAMEROTA: You don't believe that?
CHALIAN: Well, it's a subset -- it's a subset of the poll. The margin of error when you look at just Democrats is like 6.7 percent in here. It's not a wild swing, it's just where the movement is in the poll. I don't know what's not to believe. That's what, you know, you call people up on the telephone, you get their information, you pump out a survey. This is what those that we polled told us.
TOOBIN: I get it, but, I mean, you know, life mean -- life has shown us that polls are sometimes wrong. And, David, that poll is wrong. Just because I said so, OK?
CAMEROTA: Wow. Wow.
CAMEROTA: What part don't you believe?
TOOBIN: The 90 to 77 percent. I, you know, it's just I don't believe it. Like, it makes no sense that that number would change like that.
CAMEROTA: You don't believe that?
CHALIAN: Well, it's a subset -- it's a subset of the poll. The margin of error when you look at just Democrats is like 6.7 percent in here. It's not a wild swing, it's just where the movement is in the poll. I don't know what's not to believe. That's what, you know, you call people up on the telephone, you get their information, you pump out a survey. This is what those that we polled told us.
TOOBIN: I get it, but, I mean, you know, life mean -- life has shown us that polls are sometimes wrong. And, David, that poll is wrong. Just because I said so, OK?
CAMEROTA: Wow. Wow.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 10:09 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,608
Gotcha. Experts in 2016 were so dazzled by all of the crimes which trump was promising to commit if elecred that they failed to predict the specific one he'd eventually wind up getting busted on. 
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 10:11 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
"crimes" "busted"
what crime did he commit, joe? I'd love to know.
come on, what crimes do the two articles of impeachment say he committed?
bonus points for actual evidence of a crime.
remember, he was spied on by the democrats (Sept 2016 - Aug 2017), which resulted in nothing, then had an investigation opened up against him based on the fact that he was spied on by the democrats and they still couldn't find **** to "bust" him with.
meanwhile:
what crime did he commit, joe? I'd love to know.
come on, what crimes do the two articles of impeachment say he committed?
bonus points for actual evidence of a crime.
remember, he was spied on by the democrats (Sept 2016 - Aug 2017), which resulted in nothing, then had an investigation opened up against him based on the fact that he was spied on by the democrats and they still couldn't find **** to "bust" him with.
meanwhile:
Last edited by Braineack; 12-20-2019 at 10:38 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 10:48 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
One item that has been consistent in every bit of the investigations for both the Russia Collusion and for the Ukraine stuff is that all of the parties involved agree that Trump is 100% guilty of failing to help out the investigations.
From his end he learned a huge amount from Bill Clinton's biggest mistake.
"Never make an official statement, or even an informal discussion, to any investigation because if you do it WILL be used against you and in no way will be used to exonerate you."
Simple thing but the one thing that has totally pissed off everybody trying to hang him with something impeachable.
All he has to say to his staff is "Remember General Flynn if you feel like having any discussion on the matter" and it tells them why to keep their pie hole shut.
That was the biggest thing they could hang on him in the 2 year Russia investigation and it was even listed as one of the articles of impeachment.
How dare he fail to aid and abet the attempts to kick him out of office.
In that respect Trump has been way smarter than past Presidents.
Honestly, who can blame him.
He knows that a target has been painted right between his eyes from the beginning.
How dare he beat the candidate (Hillary) that the richest Democrat billionaires in the country groomed to win the election.
From his end he learned a huge amount from Bill Clinton's biggest mistake.
"Never make an official statement, or even an informal discussion, to any investigation because if you do it WILL be used against you and in no way will be used to exonerate you."
Simple thing but the one thing that has totally pissed off everybody trying to hang him with something impeachable.
All he has to say to his staff is "Remember General Flynn if you feel like having any discussion on the matter" and it tells them why to keep their pie hole shut.
That was the biggest thing they could hang on him in the 2 year Russia investigation and it was even listed as one of the articles of impeachment.
How dare he fail to aid and abet the attempts to kick him out of office.
In that respect Trump has been way smarter than past Presidents.
Honestly, who can blame him.
He knows that a target has been painted right between his eyes from the beginning.
How dare he beat the candidate (Hillary) that the richest Democrat billionaires in the country groomed to win the election.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 10:54 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
you might as well have written:
One item that has been consistent in every bit of the investigations for both the Russia Collusion and for the Ukraine stuff is that all of the parties involved agree that ORANGE MAN BAD.
Notice how your statement was 100% agree that trump failed to help out the investigations. They can only all 100% agree he exercised Rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution...
Why would you help investigators in purely partisan, biased, witch hunts, find guilt against you?
Still didn't find **** after three years of trying...
You mention Flynn above, but failed to mention that Mueller blackmailed him to protect his son... and even still, found nothing on Trump since there was never anything to find. This is exactly why everyone tells you never to talk to police -- especially the ones who are actively out to get you and will pin you with anything, even making a mistake in a statement.
I'm actually shocked that the democrats didn't try to impeach Trump for vetoing some shitty joint resolution no one cared about.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 11:07 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
you guys are delusional if you think the right, is totally in the clear and on the up and up.
March 17, 2017 -- There is more than circumstantial evidence now...and is very much worthy of investigation
March 14 2018 -- "significant evidence" of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Why wasn't Trump impeached for colluding with Russian? It's almost like we can't trust Schiff when he says something like:
Dec, 2109 -- Congressman Adam Schiff says that we already know about Trump's misconduct and the evidence of his wrongdoing is overwhelming.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 12:21 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
Braineach,
We are on the same page concerning your reply to my post.
I was not (and never will) try to argue that Trump or his people should have in the past or in the future aid in the various investigations to bring him down.
General Flynn is a shining example of people who follow that path, even though he did it not knowing there was even an investigation underway.
I feel he will be the example that lawyers will point to for many years while explaining why you should NEVER talk to law enforcement or anybody investigating anything you might have information concerning. Too much chance that you might be the collateral damage.
Trump deserves a huge pat on the back for realizing what was going on long before others figured it out and that his best path forward is to not incriminate himself or those around him.
You also gotta give him credit that he did not throw any of his people under the bus as a scapegoat to the best of my imperfect recollection.
Where we differ is in your opinion that the Russia investigation was a "Witch hunt".
Please keep in mind that the Clinton campaign did a great job of keeping secret that they had paid for the initial report that everybody jumped on.
Imagine putting one over on the head of the CIA and the FBI because that is what Hillary did, unless her people called them and let them in on the joke.
The Russians were probably envious behind the scenes because the Clintons showed them how to sow discontent and disseminate fabricated information that US intelligence and law enforcement bought into in the biggest way possible.
By the time it came out that initial documents were less than 100% pure and verifiable the CIA and FBI had already set themselves to the path that played out.
The underlings at the FBI who doctored and deleted and fabricated information appear to be the culprits that caused the down fall of the big guys in the intelligence community.
To me personally the fact that Comey and Petraeus chose to follow the bogus path after presumably seeing hints that they had been duped is vindication for Trump's condemnation of them.
It is telling to me that Trump had enough confidence in his own innocence to get rid of the people propagating what he saw as a Witch Hunt.
If you are anti-Trump the same actions appear that he is trying to quell any investigations against him.
All a matter of perspective.
We are on the same page concerning your reply to my post.
I was not (and never will) try to argue that Trump or his people should have in the past or in the future aid in the various investigations to bring him down.
General Flynn is a shining example of people who follow that path, even though he did it not knowing there was even an investigation underway.
I feel he will be the example that lawyers will point to for many years while explaining why you should NEVER talk to law enforcement or anybody investigating anything you might have information concerning. Too much chance that you might be the collateral damage.
Trump deserves a huge pat on the back for realizing what was going on long before others figured it out and that his best path forward is to not incriminate himself or those around him.
You also gotta give him credit that he did not throw any of his people under the bus as a scapegoat to the best of my imperfect recollection.
Where we differ is in your opinion that the Russia investigation was a "Witch hunt".
Please keep in mind that the Clinton campaign did a great job of keeping secret that they had paid for the initial report that everybody jumped on.
Imagine putting one over on the head of the CIA and the FBI because that is what Hillary did, unless her people called them and let them in on the joke.
The Russians were probably envious behind the scenes because the Clintons showed them how to sow discontent and disseminate fabricated information that US intelligence and law enforcement bought into in the biggest way possible.
By the time it came out that initial documents were less than 100% pure and verifiable the CIA and FBI had already set themselves to the path that played out.
The underlings at the FBI who doctored and deleted and fabricated information appear to be the culprits that caused the down fall of the big guys in the intelligence community.
To me personally the fact that Comey and Petraeus chose to follow the bogus path after presumably seeing hints that they had been duped is vindication for Trump's condemnation of them.
It is telling to me that Trump had enough confidence in his own innocence to get rid of the people propagating what he saw as a Witch Hunt.
If you are anti-Trump the same actions appear that he is trying to quell any investigations against him.
All a matter of perspective.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 01:06 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Then in 2016, after he was announced as part of Trump's team, the FBI opened another investigation on Carter Page who was working with the CIA as a source. Both Carter Page and the CIA wrote to the FBI letting them know this prior to the FISA warrant.
Despite knowing Carter Page was CIA asset, they still agreed his relationship with Russia "satisfies the criteria and requirements for such applications set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978," and obtain a new FISA warrant.
The FBI at this point, had the obligation to let Trump know there may have been a potential spy in his midst ( In 2013, the FBI warned Dianne Feinstein that one of her staff was a potential Chinese spy. ), they did not. In fact, they used the investigation to start reporting on conversations within the Trump campaign via 302 reports, and constantly tried to infiltrate the campaign with agents wearing recording devices for an entire year.
They found nothing but exculpatory evidence.
Despite this, they continued to deceive the courts and renew FISA warrant applications illegally. They used an unverified dossier the basis of the renewals, and altered documents that showed Carter Page was actually a CIA assets in order to obtain the renewals, in order to continue to spy on the campaign, not Carter Page.
The mere fact that the FBI opened this investigation, based on false pretenses [with no evidence uncovered], and in coordination with the Democratic Party, and the continued coordinated narrative being cast on Trump in the media, Rod Rosenstein took the bait and appointed Mueller to probe for witches.
Mueller and his team, starting in May '17 and ending in May 29, 2019, found no evidence of the narrative because it was never based on fact to begin with. So just because Rosenstein was dumb enough to fall for the Democrats' trap, it does not mean Muller's investigation was not a witch hunt. It was a perfectly executed scheme by the Democrats and Le Resistance.
Also remember, the entire Russia narrative all started when the Democrats set a trap for the Trump campaign after they released DNC emails, after the investigating themselves, made it look like Trump was working directly with Russia in order to hack the DNC and obtain information in a Nixon-like maneuver. It all conveniently happened during and was used in the election. And everyone fails to remember the pretty awful things found within the emails against their own party.
It's almost like the democratic party, and devoted factions of government were engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit as well as placing personal, political interests above our national security, our free and fair elections, and our system of checks and balances.
but then again, Trump did say means things a few times, so I'm probably wrong.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-20-2019 at 01:27 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 02:52 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
Sad part for me is that I am not even a Republican and I agree with you that the Democrats and the FBI came out so far looking like a bunch of crooks investigating an innocent person.
One thing you forgot to mention is that the FBI raided Trump's accounting firm during the investigation.
You can't tell me that they didn't have a pile of auditors going thru the financial records with a fine tooth comb looking for tax evasion.
I still don't think the CIA involvement or the FBI investigation was a "witch hunt".
My thinking is this.
The boss doesn't always know what is going on.
He depends on his underlings to give him the big picture and whatever details they deem important enough to ask about.
Heck, some bosses have no interest in knowing details, just give them the big picture so they can say things that make them appear that they are on top of the situation.
In this case it appears that Comey and to a lesser extent Petraeus were being manipulated by a few of their underlings to play puppet in approving the investigation.
The investigation did not fall apart until years later when the Mueller and Investigator General reports came out sharing some of the sordid details.
Until those secondary investigations came out we (and presumably most in the media and Congress and FBI and CIA) had no real information that the initial investigation was based on bogus information.
We also know that almost nobody waits for an investigation to finish before forming an opinion.
My early opinion, based on my dislike of Trump as a human being, was that within 30 days Trump would step down and beg to stay out of jail.
At least I can admit I was completely wrong and move on even though I still despise Trump.
The part I am unable to understand is why Comey and Patraeus and a bunch of the biased media types have failed to change their public statements in light of the things that have became public since then.
It is almost like somebody has some big dirt on each and is telling them what to say and do "or else".
One thing you forgot to mention is that the FBI raided Trump's accounting firm during the investigation.
You can't tell me that they didn't have a pile of auditors going thru the financial records with a fine tooth comb looking for tax evasion.
I still don't think the CIA involvement or the FBI investigation was a "witch hunt".
My thinking is this.
The boss doesn't always know what is going on.
He depends on his underlings to give him the big picture and whatever details they deem important enough to ask about.
Heck, some bosses have no interest in knowing details, just give them the big picture so they can say things that make them appear that they are on top of the situation.
In this case it appears that Comey and to a lesser extent Petraeus were being manipulated by a few of their underlings to play puppet in approving the investigation.
The investigation did not fall apart until years later when the Mueller and Investigator General reports came out sharing some of the sordid details.
Until those secondary investigations came out we (and presumably most in the media and Congress and FBI and CIA) had no real information that the initial investigation was based on bogus information.
We also know that almost nobody waits for an investigation to finish before forming an opinion.
My early opinion, based on my dislike of Trump as a human being, was that within 30 days Trump would step down and beg to stay out of jail.
At least I can admit I was completely wrong and move on even though I still despise Trump.
The part I am unable to understand is why Comey and Patraeus and a bunch of the biased media types have failed to change their public statements in light of the things that have became public since then.
It is almost like somebody has some big dirt on each and is telling them what to say and do "or else".
Reply
0
0
12-20-2019, 02:58 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Comey sorta changed his story over the last few days.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/com...hing-ig-report
..."He's right, I was wrong," Comey said about how the FBI used the FISA process, adding, "I was overconfident as director in our procedures," and that what happened "was not acceptable."
Horowitz did make it clear that he believes the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference and possible connections with the Trump campaign was properly initiated, but he did note that this is based on a “low threshold.” He also concluded that there was no testimonial or documentary evidence to show that the investigation started due to any political bias, but said the issue of bias “gets murkier” when it comes to the various issues with the FISA process.
...
Dont forget, Comey just days before being fired was requesting money to further the probe -- I'm sorry, but, he knew was bogus -- into Trump. And this was just after Trump was pressuring the he and the FBI to find out who was leaking classified information to the Press. Guess who was leaking Classified information to the Press?
Hint: look at my sig.
Comey's bias shows heavily in his statements, interviews, and twitter account since being canned. It's quite possible he may be in legal trouble when/if Burr/Durham complete their investigation.
this aged well, like a fine Egg Nog:
he may have plausible deniability, like you mentioned above being detached from his agents, but he was complicit, didn't do his job by falsified documents when considering an unverified dossier "verified" in order to obtain warrants.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/com...hing-ig-report
Comey admits ‘I was wrong’ on FISA conduct, remains defiant on dossier in tense interview
..."He's right, I was wrong," Comey said about how the FBI used the FISA process, adding, "I was overconfident as director in our procedures," and that what happened "was not acceptable."
Horowitz did make it clear that he believes the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference and possible connections with the Trump campaign was properly initiated, but he did note that this is based on a “low threshold.” He also concluded that there was no testimonial or documentary evidence to show that the investigation started due to any political bias, but said the issue of bias “gets murkier” when it comes to the various issues with the FISA process.
...
Hint: look at my sig.
Comey's bias shows heavily in his statements, interviews, and twitter account since being canned. It's quite possible he may be in legal trouble when/if Burr/Durham complete their investigation.
this aged well, like a fine Egg Nog:
he may have plausible deniability, like you mentioned above being detached from his agents, but he was complicit, didn't do his job by falsified documents when considering an unverified dossier "verified" in order to obtain warrants.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-20-2019 at 03:12 PM.
Reply
0
0
