David Brooks (N Y Times) - There is little evidence Trump committed any crime
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
And you neglected to mention you thought he would be charged. Ousted. That didn't happen either.Actually stellar, however u neglected to mention that Toronto City council did not have the legislative authority to oust him from the mayor's chair. So he was stripped of all of his authority save ceremonial and in effect castrated and made to wear a dunce cap and 'The World's Most Corrupt Mayor EVER' t-shirt.
Maybe that should be Trump's fate: legislatively sanctioned and stripped of executive authority save 'tweeting'; and made to wear a ceremonial crown, tights and robe emblazoned in flaming orange declaring "#Trump; The Most Corrupt President and Biggest PUSSY EVER"
I'm betting it doesn't happen to Trump with what's presently out there.
Alternative facts alert from KellyAnne Butler.And you neglected to mention you thought he would be charged. Ousted. That didn't happen either.
I'm betting it doesn't happen to Trump with what's presently out there.
If you accept that Trump can't actually be charged with obstruction (which he can't), so that at most the investigation could find that Trumps actions would constitute obstruction if such a charge were possible against him, and if you accept that there will ultimately be no evidence of Russian collusion, then what you would end up with (at most) is a "cover up without a crime". With a GOP majority in the House and the Senate, I think you should be able to see that conclusion would lead nowhere. I don't think it would even hurt Trump politically. An awful lot of people, including independents, would see the exercise as witch hunt if that was the conclusion (after much time, effort, money and emotional hysteria).All fine an dandy as it is in regards to collusion, HOWEVER:
- the investigation as to whether Trump may have or may not have committed obstruction of justice or any other crimes was ONLY commenced on May 12, 2017 or shortly thereafter.
For well over a month, every single mouthpiece on Terb and beyond from the Trump bullshit brigade, has basically not only been in abject denial that YES an investigation focusing on ob. of just. has been commenced, but also the bs. brigade has been resorting to an illogical, some might say maniacal , contortion and pretzel-like truth twisting, cognitive bending and reality suspending campaign to alter this reality that they refuse to acknowledge and deny that exists.
How Trumpish of them.
The word YET: Is 1 month and change sufficient time to conclude an investigation of this magnitude and importance?
TrumpWorld logic: "OMG, they have been investigating ob. of just. for 1 month ALREADY and they haven't found anything at all!!! Hence, therefore, ergo he is INNOCENT and this vindictive sore loser Democrat initiated, led and biased witch hunt should be quashed. "
I'll go you one better.And with all that said, til this day no evidence of collusion. Can we agree on that at least?
Can we at least agree that the investigation is not yet over, and whether or not evidence of collusion has been presented TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC to this day, the general public has no idea what evidence the investigative committees have. As such no conclusions can be drawn one way or the other.
Guaranteed you will not agree with this statement even though it is irrefutable to anyone using the slightest hint of rational logic.
No it isn't. It's the truth. The above statement is true.Alternative facts alert from KellyAnne Butler.
If you get Mr. Mueller to agree I will agree.And with all that said, til this day no evidence of collusion. Can we agree on that at least?
Considering the leaks, if they did have something big enough we would have heard about it.I'll go you one better.
Can we at least agree that the investigation is not yet over, and whether or not evidence of collusion has been presented TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC to this day, the general public has no idea what evidence the investigative committees have. As such no conclusions can be drawn one way or the other.
Guaranteed you will not agree with this statement even though it is irrefutable to anyone using the slightest hint of rational logic.
You are confusing evidence with proof. I have seem lots of evidence. I have no idea whether there is proof. Why don't wait until Mr. Mueller is finished to draw your conclusions.If only there were some evidence for you to look at. :biggrin1:
"a cover up without a crime", you opine?If you accept that Trump can't actually be charged with obstruction (which he can't), so that at most the investigation could find that Trumps actions would constitute obstruction if such a charge were possible against him, and if you accept that there will ultimately be no evidence of Russian collusion, then what you would end up with (at most) is a "cover up without a crime". With a GOP majority in the House and the Senate, I think you should be able to see that conclusion would lead nowhere. I don't think it would even hurt Trump politically. An awful lot of people, including independents, would see the exercise as witch hunt if that was the conclusion (after much time, effort, money and emotional hysteria).
It may have escaped your attention that I specifically included the date May 12, 2017 in my post. Included the date for a very important reason. That being that on and before that date Michael Flynn was and is being investigated for a crime and quite possibly more than one crime. 1) Failing to report numerous contacts with foreign operatives on his security clearance form and 2) alleged financial dealings and transactions with foreign entities and associated operatives of foreign entities that have been designated as being sanctioned by the American government.
In addition the subject of a plea agreement in exchange for 'spilling the beans' and executive pardon in a quid pro quo with the executive has been floated according to Michael Flynn's lawyer. And to further cement that a criminal investigation was being conducted on and before May 12, 2017 documents, information and questioning have been requested by the FBI pertaining to Michael Flynn's activities prior to May 12, 2017.
All of the above has occurred prior to May 12, 2017. Trump terminated Comey who was leading a criminal investigation into alleged criminal activities committed by Flynn. Trump himself, named Flynn in his fateful and fatal conversation with Comey. You can float your own narratives as to Trump's intent and/or corrupt intent, but these are the facts and any reasonable person can only conclude the same.
Thus we have established there was a criminal investigation of Flynn. Trump named Flynn, the subject of a criminal investigation, as the person he wanted Comey to 'let go of' with respect to such criminal investigation.
Comey refused and he promptly and summarily terminated.
Why argue with fact?
Because I know the difference between inference and fact, and I don't conflate the two.Why argue with fact?
As to "any reasonable person can only conclude the same", your thinking is not on the same page as legal analysis. The law is predicated on the proposition that there is a divergent range of views that reasonable people can hold. That's why the standards of proof in criminal proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt) and civil proceedings (balance of probabilities (implicitly recognizes that more than one conclusion may be reasonably possible)) are couched differently than your standard.
If you're trying to argue that you are in possession of facts that leave no reasonable doubt that what Trump said or did to Comey proves corrupt intent, I disagree. And it would appear that Comey disagreed with that view at the material time. And Dershowitz disagrees. And many others. That would make it a little difficult for either Mueller and/or the GOP house members to decide otherwise, wouldn't you agree?
You've heard the arguments in support of the conclusion that Trump had no corrupt intent. You may not agree, but are you really so sure that no "reasonable person" could hold those views? It's not as if there is nothing at all to base them on.
You keep conflating inference with fact.Because I know the difference between inference and fact, and I don't conflate the two.
As to "any reasonable person can only conclude the same", your thinking is not on the same page as legal analysis. The law is predicated on the proposition that there is a divergent range of views that reasonable people can hold. That's why the standards of proof in criminal proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt) and civil proceedings (balance of probabilities (implicitly recognizes that more than one conclusion may be reasonably possible)) are couched differently than your standard.
If you're trying to argue that you are in possession of facts that leave no reasonable doubt that what Trump said or did to Comey proves corrupt intent, I disagree. And it would appear that Comey disagreed with that view at the material time. And Dershowitz disagrees. And many others. That would make it a little difficult for either Mueller and/or the GOP house members to decide otherwise, wouldn't you agree?
You've heard the arguments in support of the conclusion that Trump had no corrupt intent. You may not agree, but are you really so sure that no "reasonable person" could hold those views? It's not as if there is nothing at all to base them on.
Please take note of this statement in my post and where in my post it was strategically positioned:
"You can float your own narratives as to Trump's intent and/or corrupt intent, but these are the facts and any reasonable person can only conclude the same."
You explicitly stated: "cover up without a crime" ......
.... which is factually incorrect, because Michael Flynn was being investigated for crimes prior to May 12, 2017.
You're entitled to your own inferences and opinions but not to your OWN facts.
One last attempt to untangle this knot.You keep conflating inference with fact.
Please take note of this statement in my post and where in my post it was strategically positioned:
"You can float your own narratives as to Trump's intent and/or corrupt intent, but these are the facts and any reasonable person can only conclude the same."
You explicitly stated: "cover up without a crime" ......
.... which is factually incorrect, because Michael Flynn was being investigated for crimes prior to May 12, 2017.
You're entitled to your own inferences and opinions but not to your OWN facts.
You are correct. Flynn was being investigated for something that is potentially a crime. However, Trump has every authority to pardon people for crimes as well as authority to direct the head of FBI to discontinue any investigation. As a fact, he hasn't issued Flynn a pardon, nor has he ordered anyone to discontinue the investigation against Flynn up to this point. His actual statement to Comey was that he "hoped" Flynn could be let go.
The only way this could ever become problematic (politically problematic, because there are no charges that can be brought, but might convince some GOP House members to support impeachment) is if he is seen to issue pardons, or order the discontinuance of investigations for the corrupt purpose of covering up corrupt or illegal activity by himself or conduct by others which bears directly upon his election as President.
That's why it's critical (for those looking for an impeachment) for there to be something to the Russia collusion investigation. Without that, what Flynn did or did not do does not reflect that the President did anything corrupt or unlawful. The act of issuing a pardon, or ordering an investigation to be terminated is not, per se, corrupt and is certainly not unlawful.
That's why, on my analysis, without Russian collusion, Trumps actions were, at worst, a cover up without a crime - what I mean by "crime" is a crime which is relevant to conduct of the President or his election.
Right so basically you just ignore that there is NO evidence but yet still won't say 'no evidence'. Got it! Speaks volumes to me.If you get Mr. Mueller to agree I will agree.
How about we agree with what we DO KNOW, from testimony of Comey, Rogers, Brennan, etc, and many on the house intel committees and Democratic leaders as well as Republican leaders, which is, there has been ZERO evidence of collusion. That's what we know at this moment in time. If you cannot agree with those basic FACTS we cannot agree on anything beyond that.I'll go you one better.
Can we at least agree that the investigation is not yet over, and whether or not evidence of collusion has been presented TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC to this day, the general public has no idea what evidence the investigative committees have. As such no conclusions can be drawn one way or the other.
Guaranteed you will not agree with this statement even though it is irrefutable to anyone using the slightest hint of rational logic.
Do they not understand this part?! Stuck on stupid? I don't know, they want their self professed prophesy to come to fruition so bad they can't see the forest for the trees.One last attempt to untangle this knot.
You are correct. Flynn was being investigated for something that is potentially a crime. However, Trump has every authority to pardon people for crimes as well as authority to direct the head of FBI to discontinue any investigation. As a fact, he hasn't issued Flynn a pardon, nor has he ordered anyone to discontinue the investigation against Flynn up to this point.
.
Good try - you should work at Fox News. Trump has the right to fire Comey but he does not have the right to use this ability to obstruct justice ie:' influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States ' Like murder, it is irrelevant how successfully you are - it is the intent of your actions that are significant. Nixon's 'Saturday night massacre' to fire the special prosecutor was legal. He was impeached because his intent was to obstruct justice. Trump went on national TV and told the Russians in the white house that his intent for firing Comey was to make the Russia investigation go away. Basically, while investigators are doing due diligence investigating - Trump has already confessed - twice.One last attempt to untangle this knot.
You are correct. Flynn was being investigated for something that is potentially a crime. However, Trump has every authority to pardon people for crimes as well as authority to direct the head of FBI to discontinue any investigation. As a fact, he hasn't issued Flynn a pardon, nor has he ordered anyone to discontinue the investigation against Flynn up to this point. His actual statement to Comey was that he "hoped" Flynn could be let go.
The only way this could ever become problematic (politically problematic, because there are no charges that can be brought, but might convince some GOP House members to support impeachment) is if he is seen to issue pardons, or order the discontinuance of investigations for the corrupt purpose of covering up corrupt or illegal activity by himself or conduct by others which bears directly upon his election as President.
That's why it's critical (for those looking for an impeachment) for there to be something to the Russia collusion investigation. Without that, what Flynn did or did not do does not reflect that the President did anything corrupt or unlawful. The act of issuing a pardon, or ordering an investigation to be terminated is not, per se, corrupt and is certainly not unlawful.
That's why, on my analysis, without Russian collusion, Trumps actions were, at worst, a cover up without a crime - what I mean by "crime" is a crime which is relevant to conduct of the President or his election.
As far as Russian collusion in the election I doubt Trump directly participated although Mike Flynn could have been directed. Trump is a buffoon and easily manipulated - he could be the clown front to a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation to diminish US international influence. No one will know until the investigation is finished. Trump has a history of financial dealings with Russian oligarchs - he could pose a serious risk to blackmail above the video with hookers.
Yes, Trump confesses to obstruction of justice twice and yet Trump supporters seem stuck on stupid. Of course they are Trump supporters .. maybe 'facts' are a little foreign to their mindset.Do they not understand this part! Stuck on stupid? I don't know, they want their self professed prophesy to come to fruition so bad they can't see the forest for the trees.
I blame Fox News.
He said nothing of the sort. Heres some facts for ya. Fox quadrupled CNN's audience the night of Trump's live rally. Nobody gives a CRAP about your Russian hoax anymore.Yes, Trump confesses to obstruction of justice twice and yet Trump supporters seem stuck on stupid. Of course they are Trump supporters .. maybe 'facts' are a little foreign to their mindset.
I blame Fox News.
Yes, Trump confesses to obstruction of justice twice and yet Trump supporters seem stuck on stupid. Of course they are Trump supporters .. maybe 'facts' are a little foreign to their mindset.
I blame Fox News.
If this was true a call for impeachment would already have occurred. There are enough Republicans in the house and Senate who Hate Trump that would do it if the evidence was there.
That's how I know so far there isn't. Graham and McCain would lead the charge. As well as several moderate House members.
