yeah, it's a no win when dealing with crooks and liars.How do the rest of us deal with people who constantly lie and are willing to break any rule?
Any action they take becomes justifiable in their own minds in that context. Even sedition. Even voter suppression.
It's impossible to deal with people like this.
How do you do business with someone who constantly acts in bad faith? It's impossible.
What's become very obvious concerning those who support a con man for president with an agenda to wipe out democracy in our country, is that they are hell bent to hammer the big lie along with the many lies in order to hopefully brainwash and control those who are willing to give in to them and this agenda. We are still witnessing history in the making. A bad history. For example, the effort on the House of Representatives behalf to set up a 1/6 commission. The perfect example is most Republicans in the House rejecting that effort. Those who support the Big Lie. However, as this thread's op has shown, there are a few judges left who are willing to do what's right to maybe prevent this sort of takeover by deliberate operatives who have pledged their souls to one corrupt con man now residing in Fla. Sadly, I feel that such operatives are here in DP. They display so many signs that suggest that this is what many good members here are up against. imo I again, appreciate your effort in this thread to bang your head up against the wall as much as you have here. You've not changed the minds of the operatives. imo You have, however, shown many others what's right and exposed what's wrong. They saw/see that for themselves. Just as we saw with our very own eyes the violent insurrection attempt on our Capitol. This has been a very educated journey in this thread.How do the rest of us deal with people who constantly lie and are willing to break any and every rule both formal and informal?
Any action they take becomes justifiable in their own minds in that context. Even sedition. Even voter suppression.
It's impossible to deal with people like this.
How do you do business with someone who constantly acts in bad faith? It's impossible.
At a certain point, if a realization is made that a political leader or his supporters keep demonstrating their desire to destroy a government, they have to be excluded.
I think this is a possibility, and I think this could be a reasonable assumption, but only under an entirely different fact pattern.
Why do I say this?
Well, there is substantial evidence indicating that this was not Trump's main concern and that he did, in fact, have a corrupt intent when he attempted to obstruct or end the Mueller investigation.
Mueller's report in Volume 2 revealed:
1. Trump was concerned about the public's perception of allegations of Russian interference and how that might cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. (See page 89 of Volume 2)
2. Trump was concerned about how a criminal investigation into his own conduct and his campaign's conduct would become the subject of widespread media attention. (See page 97 of Volume 2)
3. Trump sought to persuade McGahn to lie about Trump's attempts to interfere in the investigation. You don't try to convince people to lie about your attempt to end an investigation if you are ending that investigation for legal and legitimate reasons. You try to convince people to lie if you're trying to cover up an attempted act of obstruction. (See page 120 of Volume 2)
4. Trump also dangled the prospect of a pardon in front of Manafort in order to discourage him from cooperating with investigators. If you have a legitimate reason for ending an investigation into yourself you don't need to dangle pardons in front of anyone to discourage them from cooperating in criminal investigations. (See page 132 of Volume 2)
All of these things are not legitimate reasons to end a criminal investigation, all of these things are corrupt reasons to end an investigation. And these are corrupt reasons EVEN if you are sympathetic to the idea of a person not wanting to experience public humiliation, and EVEN if you are sympathetic to the person who is experiencing such public humiliation.
And these intentions, if proven true, would lead to a successful conviction on obstruction EVEN if prosecutors could never prove an underlying crime.
And the SAME thing holds true with respect to impeachment and removal of a President on the basis of impeachment because an act of attempted obstruction is also an abuse of office.
The president has a duty to "take care" the laws are enforced.
He knew the allegations were nonsense.
He knew the allegations was sapping his administration.
Its not corrupt.
The president has a duty to "take care" the laws are enforced.
He knew the allegations were nonsense.
He knew the allegations was sapping his administration.
Its not corrupt.
So how do you feel about the FBI lying to a FISA court to get a warrant against a US Citizen ?Yes, it is time for the public to see it.
View attachment 67331822
In Tuesday's ruling, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the unreleased OLC memo that Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction contradicted his claim that the decision to charge the president was under his purview because the special counsel Robert Mueller "did not resolve the question of whether the evidence would support a prosecution."
"The letter asserted that the Special Counsel 'did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,' and it went on to announce the Attorney General's own opinion that 'the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,'" Jackson wrote.
However, the OLC's memo "calls into question the accuracy of Attorney General Barr's March 24 representation to Congress" and "raises serious questions about how the Department of Justice could make this series of representations to a court," the ruling said.
They didn't know who she was.
Why did the Clinton campaign search out dirt from Russia?
Why did the Obama Admin use info from a suspected Russian spy in court?
Its the same issue. Russia targeted the election and all three were sucked into it.
Dear Curious;So how do you feel about the FBI lying to a FISA court to get a warrant against a US Citizen ?
Or the Director of the FBI stating a Crime has been committed but will not charge the Criminal ?
Just curious .
FISA Court Confirms The Government Lied In Every Spy Warrant Application Against Carter Page
A newly declassified June ruling from a FISA court shows the government lied about its legal basis for spying on former Trump campaign official Carter Page.thefederalist.com FBI's top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it
James Baker told House investigators he believed Clinton mishandled classified information by using her private, unsecured email server.thehill.com
Now, you’re trying to refashion whataboutism!
The Clinton Campaign asked questions about Trump’s Russian connections for the very obvious reason that he had them.
You and your ilk may have only seen Trump as the fake billionaire star of an insipid reality show.
I knew who and what he was forty years ago. He was, and is a sleazy, petty, dishonest and venal little schmuck. That was true back when he was playing front man for his daddy in the Grand Hyatt deal, and it is today.
Anyone who followed Donald Trump in the business page, rather than the New York Post or ET, knew his long history of dependence on Russian financing. They held the paper on virtually everything he owns. (and they’re trying to unwind it now, writing off the losses).
There was also pretty open talk about how his properties were favorites of money launderers (many of them Russian).
That was true the day he rode the esculator, and is still true.
So there was ample reason for the Clinton campaign to focus on Trump’s Russian dealings. He has a twenty year history.
I have yet to find any evidence that Glen Simpson was a suspected Russian spy.
But you always try and dodge or deny the fact that Trump, Stone, Manafort and Flynn all KNEW that Kelimnik IS a Russian spy. But it is apparantly OK to to collude with one.
Trump was in talks with the Russians bag man who put together the financing on the Trump SoHo cluster over his fantasy of a Trump Tower Moscow. Taht went on throughout the Presidential campaign.
The details are all pretty well known and well documented now.
You can’t refute even one of them.
Instead, after a wave a whataboutism, you try the ”they were all victims of the Russians” play. Joining whataboutism with the lies you keep repeating about Trump’s collusion.
It is also probable -- but not definitively proven -- that Trump engaged in obstruction or abuse of office while attempting to impede or end the Special Counsel's investigation. This was something I successfully demonstrated earlier in this thread. And you don't want to tackle that evidence, that's why you keep resorting to making the same unsupported declarative statements and asserting them as if they were gospel. It doesn't matter if Trump was simply embarrassed, trying to end an investigation because you're embarrassed is still an act of corruption.
We have no obligation to assume the allegations were nonsense simply because Trump said they were nonsense. This is especially true given his penchant for lying. Trump is simply not someone who can be trusted to ever tell the truth.
Neither the allegations nor the investigations were sapping his administration. These are things that could have occurred without his personal involvement. Lots of people worked for the federal government. Lots of lawyers represented Trump with respect to the office of the Presidency. And Trump had tremendous personal resources to hire an army of lawyers to represent himself with respect to his individual legal representation. He's the big "rich" television star, right? He was not the fraud everyone thought he was, right? Or, was he lying about that too?
Do you know what was sapping his administration? His egomania and fixation on his personal image were sapping his administration. Do you know what else was sapping his administration? His counter-productive behavior. Trump is responsible for his behavior as it relates to trying to conspire with the Russian government. Trump is responsible for his behavior in trying to avoid scrutiny and possibly corruptly end the investigations into himself and his associates.
Oh, I have no issue with Clinton seeking out dirt on Trump in Russia.
Its you guys who seem to have a conniption with seeking out dirt on Clinton in Russia.
Did McCain know Kilmnick was a spy? Or was the late senator also in the dark, as was Manafort?
All you argued is that it is 'corrupt' for a president to be concerned about the operations of his government.
That isn't corrupt. Its kind of goes with the territory.
Trump doesn't have to say anything. The burden is on the accuser.
A president being under investigation-- or thought to being under investigation-- is a problem that an army of lawyers doesn't change.
But in any event, all this is is a political rebuttal. A political debate.
And maybe its true.
But it has nothing to do with law enforcement. Its not evidence of a crime to have a differing opinion.
I am not talking about Trump's individual right to not testify against himself. Furthermore, with respect to the comments to this thread, I have always spoken about his duty, by virtue of the oath to the Constitution he took when taking office, to faithfully execute our laws. I was merely referencing the fact that you take everything Trump says at face value and cannot conceive for a moment that he may be lying about what he said about the Special Counsel's investigation. And this is not a wise thing to do given his known history of being an unrepentant liar with respect to all matters.
How so? Explain why it's a problem. Explain why an army of lawyers doesn't change the problem?
You assume it to be self-evident that it is a problem for a President who hasn't done anything wrong to be under investigation even though he has an army of lawyers.
1. I'm not suggesting it is evidence of a crime to have a differing opinion. I am suggesting it's a crime to use a President's official powers to engage in an act of obstruction.
2. There are two aspects to Trump's possible act of obstruction:
a) there is a criminal aspect. It is a crime to engage in obstruction
b) there is a constitutional aspect. It is an abuse of office to engage in obstruction of justice.
As it relates to point B you have continually suggested that a President's overall lack of integrity, lack of morality, and generally non-illegal but still bad behavior does not matter.
This is false. Abuses of office can be WORSE than a crime. The person assigned to the office of the President through the will of American voters has special duties and special obligations that far exceed even the general duty of all citizens to not commit crimes. The fact that you don't give a shit about someone like Trump engaging in an impeachable offense, an offense that can only be scrutinized, investigated, and punished via Congress through political means, does not make the act of wrongdoing any less wrong. It's still very, very important. And encapsulating an impeachable offense as a "political debate" is minimizing such behavior. I think it's wrong. I think it reflects poorly on people who have such a nonchalant attitude about abuses of office and acts of corruption. You think it's no big deal someone like Trump would use his office to obstruct justice. It is a big deal.
Do you concede that it is at least theoretically possible for a President to engage in an act of Obstruction of Justice while engaging in what would otherwise be a lawful executive action?
For example, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a President shut down an investigation with the intent of covering up a crime the President or the President's associates engaged in?
Trump has said there was no conspiracy.
Mueller could not establish that one existed.
I think it is safe to assume Trump knew all along there was no conspiracy.
It is a political and a governing problem.
A bunch of lawyers doesn't change that equation.
And you are citing a differing of opinion as evidence of that obstruction.
Yes. Which is why I have been separating the two out. There are different standards for both.
I have never said that. What I have said is this argument above is a POLITICAL argument that a Congress can, if they wish, impeach a president over.
But because impeachment is political, a president doesn't have to sit quietly and accept those political opinions. The president is allowed to fight back politically.
However, you have chosen to insist that a president who does could very well be committing a crime.
I reject the claim that Trump obstructed justice.
I also reject the claim that a president is not allowed to respond to a political act of Congress ie impeachment politically.
Yes-- because a president doesn't have the authority to cover up a crime.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?