RedDenver Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, funhusker said: To try and save a relationship with Trump administration, they didn't want to give it to Mueller, but were willing to tell NBC news they have evidence? If they had given it to Mueller, Trump would have probably never knew about it until a relationship with him would no longer even matter. Now Qatar just becomes another Twitter target. I'm not buying this just yet. We don't have to buy the Qatari story, but the fact the Trumps haven't disentangled their political from their business interests is why the Qatari can even bring up this issue. There's a reason everyone and their brother has been saying that Trump's violating the emoluments clause, and this is an example of why it matters. Because true or false, the Qatari can use it against him. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 hours ago, funhusker said: To try and save a relationship with Trump administration, they didn't want to give it to Mueller, but were willing to tell NBC news they have evidence? If they had given it to Mueller, Trump would have probably never knew about it until a relationship with him would no longer even matter. Now Qatar just becomes another Twitter target. I'm not buying this just yet. I'd point out that the article mentions that the Nader guy involved in meetings as a UAE representative is working with Mueller. So whether or not the Qataris choose to cooperate, Nader is and seems more likely to be privy to knowledge on what they have on Kushner. Or perhaps they're just parsing words and have provided intel to the FBI rather than Mueller. If they or anyone else go that route, Mueller will wind up with it anyway. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, RedDenver said: We don't have to buy the Qatari story, but the fact the Trumps haven't disentangled their political from their business interests is why the Qatari can even bring up this issue. There's a reason everyone and their brother has been saying that Trump's violating the emoluments clause, and this is an example of why it matters. Because true or false, the Qatari can use it against him. Bingo. Its incredible he has been allowed to get away with it to this point. Complete disregard for the office..can't say I'm disappointed in Trump because this was expected, but I am disappointed in our system. Its as bad as ever when someone like Trump runs around unchecked 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Presidential historian Allan Lichtman, who predicted Trump's election 30 days before the election, now predicts his impeachment. He also documents Trump's massive # of lies and the potential shake up of Trump's legal team - to include the lawyer that represented Clinton during the impeachment trial. He wrote the book - Case for Impeachment. Video interview http://www.msnbc.com/david-gura/watch/historian-makes-bold-prediction-about-president-trump-1183185987655 From an older print interview https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-impeachment-professor-allan-lichtman-237181 Quote Lichtman’s list of possible offenses that could get Trump to that point are familiar: charges of treason with Russia, abuse of power and emoluments violations. Lichtman also cites now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a senator, who argued that a president could be impeached for offenses committed before he took office. Among those potential offenses, Lichtman lists Trump’s housing violations, charity problems, potential violations of the Cuba embargo and Trump University. It’s all part of a brief — designed to be damning — tour through Trump’s history. It includes section headings like “Trump Towers Become Vacant Lots” and “Lying His Way to the Presidency.” It eventually leads Lichtman to the conclusion that Trump might serve himself up for impeachment: “Trump’s disregard for lying in sworn testimony, examined in the context of the Bill Clinton precedent, shows how Trump’s opponents could set an impeachment trap for him through a civil lawsuit.” 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 18 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Presidential historian Allan Lichtman, who predicted Trump's election 30 days before the election, now predicts his impeachment. He also documents Trump's massive # of lies and the potential shake up of Trump's legal team - to include the lawyer that represented Clinton during the impeachment trial. He wrote the book - Case for Impeachment. Video interview http://www.msnbc.com/david-gura/watch/historian-makes-bold-prediction-about-president-trump-1183185987655 From an older print interview https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-impeachment-professor-allan-lichtman-237181 I agree with most of that, but I'd like to point out that Trump did NOT commit treason, which has a very specific legal meaning. Here's an article that discusses the myths about treason: Five myths about treason Quote MYTH NO. 2 Aiding Russia is treason against the United States. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, RedDenver said: I agree with most of that, but I'd like to point out that Trump did NOT commit treason, which has a very specific legal meaning. Here's an article that discusses the myths about treason: Five myths about treason Quote MYTH NO. 2 Aiding Russia is treason against the United States. So, if "conspiracy against the United States" isn't "treason".....what is it? And, What exactly happens if proven the future President took part in that conspiracy? 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: So, if "conspiracy against the United States" isn't "treason".....what is it? And, What exactly happens if proven the future President took part in that conspiracy? Maybe he could share the fate of drug dealers... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 52 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: Good God it's so obvious. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: So, if "conspiracy against the United States" isn't "treason".....what is it? And, What exactly happens if proven the future President took part in that conspiracy? Conspiracy against the United States is a separate law from treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3: Quote Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. And from the article I linked before: Quote But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law. EDIT: Since we are not at war with Russian, it is impossible for anyone, including Trump, to have committed treason. However, that's the criminal definitions as they'd hold in a court of law. Impeachment is a political (instead of a criminal) proceeding, so Congress can technically impeach for any perceived "high crime or misdemeanor" including an impeachment article on a different definition of "treason". Edited March 12, 2018 by RedDenver Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, BigRedBuster said: Good God it's so obvious. I know, right? The Canadians totally did it! Link to comment
NM11046 Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 Here are the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee who are shutting down the House investigation and signing off stating there was no collusion, and that the intelligence agencies were wrong in saying Russia interfered with our elections. Feel free to reach out to them. Devin Nunes, Chairman - 22nd District of California Mike Conaway - 11th District of Texas Peter King - 2nd District of New York Frank LoBiondo - 2nd District of New Jersey Tom Rooney - 17th District of Florida Ileana Ros-Lehtinen- 27th District of Florida Michael Turner - 10th District of Ohio Brad Wenstrup - 2nd District of Ohio Chris Stewart - 2nd District of Utah Rick Crawford - 1st District of Arkansas Trey Gowdy - 4th District of South Carolina Elise Stefanik - 21st District of New York Will Hurd - 23rd District of Texas 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Absolutely shocking.....I tell you.... Link to comment
Moiraine Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 22 minutes ago, NM11046 said: Here are the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee who are shutting down the House investigation and signing off stating there was no collusion, and that the intelligence agencies were wrong in saying Russia interfered with our elections. Feel free to reach out to them. Devin Nunes, Chairman - 22nd District of California Mike Conaway - 11th District of Texas Peter King - 2nd District of New York Frank LoBiondo - 2nd District of New Jersey Tom Rooney - 17th District of Florida Ileana Ros-Lehtinen- 27th District of Florida Michael Turner - 10th District of Ohio Brad Wenstrup - 2nd District of Ohio Chris Stewart - 2nd District of Utah Rick Crawford - 1st District of Arkansas Trey Gowdy - 4th District of South Carolina Elise Stefanik - 21st District of New York Will Hurd - 23rd District of Texas Sounds familiar. They also break with scientists on almost every issue. Why not the FBI and CIA? These people are disgusting. 2 Link to comment
commando Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 they will protect trump no matter what mueller finds. Even if the dems sweep every seat in the midterms i am not sure if they have enough votes to impeach trump. Link to comment
Recommended Posts