You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#1351 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

1. The first instance of possible obstruction detailed in the report occurred during the 2016 campaign, when questions first "arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump."

The report states that while Mr. Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, he and his aides were also trying to get information about "any further Wikileaks releases." The report also notes that despite Mr. Trump's insistence he had no business connections to Russia, his namesake company was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And once the election was over, Mr. Trump "expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election."

2. The second instance involves Mr. Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who left the administration just weeks into Mr. Trump's presidency after he misled FBI agents and top administration officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had said he had not discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, a lie that Pence and others then repeated.

The day that Mr. Trump found out Flynn had lied to Pence and the FBI, he had dinner with Comey, whom he asked for "loyalty." Mr. Trump then secured Flynn's resignation on Feb. 13, 2017. "Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over," he told an outside adviser, who disagreed with the president's assessment.

That same day, Mr. Trump had another meeting with Comey and encouraged him to stop investigating Flynn. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go," Mr. Trump said.

The president then asked Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo "stating that the president had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered."

3. The third instance involves then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was debating whether to recuse himself from the Russia investigation in February 2017, as well as Comey. Mr. Trump asked White House Counsel Don McGahn to talk Sessions out of recusal, and became angry when Sessions announced he would recuse himself on March 2. The president then asked Sessions to "unrecuse" himself.

After Comey testified to Congress that there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump reached out to his CIA and NSA directors to help "dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort." Comey had told Mr. Trump he wasn't under investigation and, against McGahn's advice, the president twice called the FBI director to ask him to say that publicly.

4. The fourth instance stems from Mr. Trump's decision to fire Comey, which directly led to Mueller's appointment. Mr. Trump decided to fire Comey in May 2017 — days after the FBI director declined to tell Congress that Mr. Trump wasn't under investigation.

After Mr. Trump dismissed Comey, the White House insisted he had done so at the recommendation of the Department of Justice. In reality, Mr. Trump had not consulted with the Justice Department before deciding to fire Comey.

In conversations that followed, Mr. Trump indicated the Russia investigation was the real reason he had let Comey go: "The day after firing Comey, the president told Russian officials that he had 'faced great pressure because of Russia,' which had been 'taken off' by Comey's firing. The next day, the president acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he 'decided to just do it,' he was thinking that 'this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.'"

5. The fifth instance revolves around Mr. Trump's reaction to Mueller's appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was "the end of his presidency." Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions' resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel.

It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

McGahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.

6. The sixth instance stems from the June 2016 meeting between top campaign aides and "a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as 'part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'"

Mr. Trump told his aides "not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited." Donald Trump Jr., who had been present at the Trump Tower meeting, wrote a press release saying "the meeting was with 'an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign'" — a line that was edited out about the president.

Mr. Trump's personal lawyer then denied to reporters the president had "played any role" in Trump Jr.'s statement.

7. The seventh instance has to do with Mr. Trump's repeated attempts to have Sessions "reverse his recusal." Mr. Trump asked Sessions to do this in the summer of 2017. The following December, Mr. Trump told Sessions he would be a "hero" if he took control of the investigation.

Additionally, in October 2017, the president asked Sessions to "take [a] look" at investigating Hillary Clinton.

8. The eighth instance concerns Mr. Trump's efforts to get McGahn to dispute press accounts that the president had instructed him to try and get rid of Mueller. In early 2018, Mr. Trump told White House officials to tell McGahn to rebut the stories, but McGahn told the officials the stories were true. Mr. Trump then personally appealed to McGahn, telling him in an Oval Office meeting to deny the reports.

"In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president's efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president," the report states. "McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle."

9. The ninth instance stems from Mr. Trump's response to the prosecutions of Flynn and Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, as well as an individual whose identity was redacted.

"After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the president and began cooperating with the government, the president's personal counsel left a message for Flynn 's attorneys reminding them of the president's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said 'still remains,' and asking for a 'heads up' if Flynn knew 'information that implicates the president,'" the report states.

"When Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the president's personal counsel said he would make sure that the president knew that Flynn's actions reflected 'hostility' towards the president."

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump praised Manafort during his "prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating." At one point, he praised Manafort as "a brave man" who refused to "break."

10. The tenth and final instance of potential obstruction concerns Mr. Trump's behavior toward Michael Cohen, his onetime personal lawyer. Mr. Trump profusely praised Cohen when he remained loyal to the administration, at one point personally calling to encourage him to "stay strong," only to criticize him viciously when he began cooperating with the government.

"After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the president publicly asserted that Cohen would not 'flip,' contacted him directly to tell him to 'stay strong,' and privately passed messages of support to him," the report states.

"Cohen also discussed pardons with the president's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, called him a 'rat,' and suggested that his family members had committed crimes."


source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstructio … er-report/

#1352 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

Smoking Guns wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

Trump only cares about rules when they benefit him. Same with the constitution. Which is something he refers to only when it benefits him.

I wish everyone could pick and choose when the rules matter.

This is every president ever.

The thing that REALLY bugs me about Trump and the media are the constant accusations of him being a dictator and of destroying democracy. I have no idea what rights he's taken away from anyone including the press or how he's tried to destroy the constitution.

So far the democrats are calling for:

1. Abolishing the senate.
2. Stacking the supreme court with liberal judges.
3. Rewriting, or ditching the constitution.
4. Eliminating the electoral college.
5. Creating a wealth tax to punish people specifically for their income.
6. Eliminating private healthcare putting everything in government control.
7. Eliminating the fossil fuel industry.
8. Harris has said she will use executive power to force companies to pay everyone equally.
9. Harris has said she would use executive power to rewrite the law and the second amendment.
10. Harris has said she will write executive orders to weaken state authority and power.
11. Not to mention the growing Dem attack on free speech and the brainwashing on college campuses.
12. Let's throw in the Taliban like attempt at destroying monuments and erasing our founding fathers, because history hurts feelings.

That sounds like tyrannical dictator, not a guy who lies all the time (like every other politician ever) and is a dick in public instead of privately. If they got their way do you seriously think Dems won't start attacking the free press when shit goes south? Attacking Fox news is already signaling where they're headed.

Holy shit, look at these truth bombs being dropped by ID!!

Oh come on, these are basic fallacious arguments which are easily debunked.

1. Abolishing the senate.

What, what does that even mean?  Also, its mitch mcconnell who's been envoking the nuclear option to put bills & SC thru at 51 votes. But if you can tell me which candidate stated they wish to "abolish the senate" please do.

2. Stacking the supreme court with liberal judges.
See above. Plus McConnell refused to even hold a vote in 2016, now he's gone on record admitting he would hold a vote in 2020 if needed. That said, our SC policy has become too partisan.

3. Rewriting, or ditching the constitution.
Lol, with a President who's constantly shit on the Freedom Of The Press.

4. Eliminating the electoral college.
The votes need to be reallocated. States like Mt, ND, SD etc receiving 3 votes automatically gives people there elevated status, RI etc too. Just realign where the votes come from, or add more to states who've seen their population grow the last few decades. I think it hadn't happened since 1876 where the EC winner did not win the popular vote.  It happened twice since 2000. Also, per Wikipedia we used to add ECs every 4-8 years. We've been at 538 since 1964.

5. Creating a wealth tax to punish people specifically for their income.
Jeff Bezos, a (likely) liberal, reportedly pays $0 in takes. Same with Amazon. I have no problem adjusting tax laws to prevent that. And I have no problem creating a wealth tax for estates over $10 million dollars and closing loopholes to shelter that inheritance from taxes. Lemme know if you're fine with Jared & Ivanka paying $0 in inheritance & taxes.

6. Eliminating private healthcare putting everything in government control.
I'm not sure Medicare For All is the right answer, I've repeatedly said I do believe there should be a catastrophy plan in place, that people pay into. And keep pre-existing conditions laws in place. If you're FOR getting rid of the ACA you are FOR allowing healthcare companies to say 'No' to potential customers.

7. Eliminating the fossil fuel industry.
It's just capitalism, survival of the fittest. I have no problem looking to the future & investing in it. I'd rather invest in Elon Musk type ventures than a coal mine which'll file for bankruptcy in 5 years & shut down once the mine is dry.

8. Harris has said she will use executive power to force companies to pay everyone equally.
I haven't heard that, other than generic 'Equal Pay' gap type speak. I'll admit that often times to me comes off as just talk to get the base & female votes energized. I highly doubt the female in the cubicle next to me is ever 'intentionally' paid less. (Aside from less experience or accepted an offer with less pay, highed at a bad time for the company etc)

9. Harris has said she would use executive power to rewrite the law and the second amendment.
Didn't the bump stock ban ultimately go thru?  That's only a result of some democrats & leftists fighting hard to push it thru via not giving up on it. Bump stocks are absurd & the corrupt Russian $$ fed NRA was trying hard to be against it until losing out on public perception.

10. Harris has said she will write executive orders to weaken state authority and power.
Again, with what?  Abortion?  I don't know. As a former prosecutor she might have some insight into what should & shouldn't be state control (look at Alabama hypothetically forcing a teenage rape victim to go thru full term with pregnancy. What if its by an illegal immigrant, does she still need to carry it to term?  Seems so)

11. Not to mention the growing Dem attack on free speech and the brainwashing on college campuses.
How about Trumps 2 1/2 year attack on the press??  Trying to eliminate CNN & put their entire staff out of work. And refusing to have the USS McCain in sight while he gives a speech.

12. Let's throw in the Taliban like attempt at destroying monuments and erasing our founding fathers, because history hurts feelings.
Robert E Lee & Jefferson Davis were not USA leaders. In fact they declared war against the US. We won that war, remember?

#1353 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

Even better, my guess is Cruz's team &/or Repubs have been monitoring AOCs twitter like a hawk. Waiting to call her on something and use it to push forward, knowing DC veteran Dems wont want to support her on it.

Nice pivot, well played.

#1354 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

Prolly wont go very far, but cool to see 2 people step up and put themselves out there at a time like this.


#1355 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

I read something that the Dow has been down week over week for 5 weeks in a row.

Thats happened quietly.

#1356 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

unFUCKINGbelievable.


#1357 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

Muellers a lifelong Republican, so he was never in it to "help out" the people who want to impeach.

#1358 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

Gotta admit Pelosis handling this well. Considering only a year or so ago she was considered a wacko left wing radical.

#1359 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

I read where someone said its stated somewhere a President can only be removed from office via impeachment, so if he went to jail, he'd be 'removed from office', so its basically a catch 22 that we now have a criminal as president.


Yeah!!! Go Trump!  'Murica

#1360 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 363 weeks ago

If he DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so.
Mueller did not say so.
Hence, Trump DID commit a crime.

Its simple logical formula. Flagg can even vouch for that, he prolly knows Java or C+ computer programming arguments.

Also,
We did not seek to charge him with a crime, due to longstanding policy that a president cant be charged with a crime.

And
We didnt comment on if we found he commited a crime, since he wouldnt have a chance in court to essentially clear his name.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB