• The forum will be going down at about 5 AM CST Oct 16 for maintenance. We should be down less than 1 hour.

  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obstruction case on King Tangface is SOLID! (Maddow OH NOES!)

markjs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
3,833
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Port Hadlock, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If you can't be bothered to watch this, your comments are meaningless drivel. I know how conservatives love to bray about how much they Hate Maddow but she does her homeswork, and not a single point she makes is something that isn't easily verifiable. I mean I'm not going to alt-right sites lieke Breitbart, but I will watch Fox news videos I see posted before giving my opinion on the matter and AFAIK almost all of us on the left willl look at legit conservative news sources, so at least do us that favor?


Really, if you hate Maddow that much, even start around the 10 minute mark because there's where she really get's into detail. Very hard to argue there's not obstruction, there is BLATANT OPEN obstruction, over and over.:roll::2mad:

If one is rational, it's undeniable.:roll:
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
84,211
Reaction score
58,698
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'd love to watch it, but I really don't like Rachel Maddow at all. I don't like her snark. But I will absolutely acknowledge her as a brilliant woman, no question.

I wonder if I can find a transcript somewhere.

And yeah, there's obstruction, if you're talking about Trump. I have no doubt about it. I'll wait for the official reports, but I'm pretty convinced at this point.
 

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,278
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Maddow is the most thorough and intelligent commentator on any news channel. She puts in CNN and others to shame.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you can't be bothered to watch this, your comments are meaningless drivel. I know how conservatives love to bray about how much they Hate Maddow but she does her homeswork, and not a single point she makes is something that isn't easily verifiable. I mean I'm not going to alt-right sites lieke Breitbart, but I will watch Fox news videos I see posted before giving my opinion on the matter and AFAIK almost all of us on the left willl look at legit conservative news sources, so at least do us that favor?


Really, if you hate Maddow that much, even start around the 10 minute mark because there's where she really get's into detail. Very hard to argue there's not obstruction, there is BLATANT OPEN obstruction, over and over.:roll::2mad:

If one is rational, it's undeniable.:roll:

She makes a lot of connections based on "reportedly" type stuff. In effect, she is basing her whole screed on rumors.

Dismissed.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,321
Reaction score
12,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I wonder if I can find a transcript somewhere..
I'll summarize. I missed this last night and am taking notes now, figured this was an excuse to delay my work more. It's hasty so it is what it is :)

History of Nixon and his administrations many misdeeds.

Many of Nixon's senior folks already indicted on federal charges, and the Grand Jury names Nixon as a co-conspirator to these crimes.
Nixon's legal team challenged this. Challenges if the evidence in this case was sufficient to warrant naming him as a co-conspirator.
Judiciary committee in congress wrote to the special prosecutor and said "present the evidence that warranted naming Nixon".

They said "OK, here it comes".
Many, many pages of detailed evidence detailed many crimes, including many examples of obstruction.
joined criminal conspiracy to obstruct and commit perjury
- making false statements
- offers of clemency and lenience
- obtaining information form the justice department to thwart the investigation
- making and facilitating the making of false statements
- influencing aides to give false information
- obstruction of a congressional committee
etc.etc.
-
Point being, many of these sound precisely like Trump-team efforts, and they were all stacked up by the special prosecutor for Nixon.
Also notice it was congress asking the special prosecutor for the evidence, of particular interest in the post-Whitaker AG (Trump partisan).

She then recounts a lot of the big examples of Trump obstruction. It started with two exapmles showing key people being questioned by congress on this, and how they all dodged/avoided answering...awkwardly so.

1. Reports break that President directly asks Coats and head of NSA (Mike) to make public statements to say they knew Trump hadn't colluded with Russia.
- Coats asked and won't answer
- Mike Rogers is asked the same, also refuses to answer.

2. trump also asked Coats and Pompeo to interfere with Comey's investigations - Pompeo refuses to answer, and says "I don't recall"

3. Comey was asked to back off investigation into Flynn
4. Trump directed sessions to not recuse because he felt he can't control the investigation
5. Trump asked the AG to stop the investigation (Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt right now". Guilianni says he wasn't serious.
6. retweeting the picture of everyone opposing him behind bars, asked why Rosenstein should be behind bars. Trump responds - she should have never picked a special counsel.
7. In june told white house counsel to fire special counsel
8. Again in December
9. aug 9th last year, to Mitch McConnell for refusing to protected Trump from the Russian investigation
10. directed senate leadership to stop the senate intelligence committee investigation into Russian meddling
11. personally helped concoct false statements about the Trump Tower meeting for Don Jr.
12. President's attorneys discussed pardons with Manafort and Flynn
13. Trump specifically says a pardon for Manafort is on the table
14. Trump's attorney's bragging that Manafort, a convicted felon, while supposedly cooperating with Mueller, was feeding information to them
15. firing sessions and installing Whitaker, a partisan, conflicted, Trump loyalist who is not qualified to be AG
16. Trump admits he installed Whitaker because of the Russia investigation
17 Recently departed FBI General Counsel Jim Baker, seemingly in response, writes a piece about Nixon using contact with the Justice Department to spy on the investigation into him (Nixon).
- (for the purpose of thwarting the investigation)

Her claim is that while we have a huge spread of evidence now (thanks to people who requested it be released) about Nixon, this list of Trump's looks far greater.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,321
Reaction score
12,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
She makes a lot of connections based on "reportedly" type stuff. In effect, she is basing her whole screed on rumors.
Dismissed.
Mycroft spreads rumor that maddow's citations of Trump obstruction are based on rumors.

How many examples of Trump obstruction, and which ones were based on "rumor"? Can you evidence what wrote, or are we to accept it based on your rumor-mongering? Are you saying Sessions wasn't fired and replace by Whitaker? Are you saying Trump's quote as to why he did it, was a rumor? Are you saying credentialed reporters who have multiple sources, is no different than "any rumor"?

You continually post **** and keep telling us it's flowers.
 
Last edited:

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mycroft spreads rumor that maddow's citations of Trump obstruction are based on rumors.

How many examples of Trump obstruction, and which ones were based on "rumor"? Can you evidence what wrote, or are we to accept it based on your rumor-mongering? Are you saying Sessions wasn't fired and replace by Whitaker? Are you saying Trump's quote as to why he did it, was a rumor? Are you saying credentialed reporters who have multiple sources, is no different than "any rumor"?

You continually post **** and keep telling us it's flowers.

Hey...you are welcome to count the number of times Maddow uses the words "reportedly", "apparently", "according to...", etc. All you have to do is watch the video.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,999
Reaction score
6,214
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hey...you are welcome to count the number of times Maddow uses the words "reportedly", "apparently", "according to...", etc. All you have to do is watch the video.

Isn't that called citing sources? I would rather her say that than state her premises as accepted fact.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,859
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If you can't be bothered to watch this, your comments are meaningless drivel. I know how conservatives love to bray about how much they Hate Maddow but she does her homeswork, and not a single point she makes is something that isn't easily verifiable. I mean I'm not going to alt-right sites lieke Breitbart, but I will watch Fox news videos I see posted before giving my opinion on the matter and AFAIK almost all of us on the left willl look at legit conservative news sources, so at least do us that favor?


Really, if you hate Maddow that much, even start around the 10 minute mark because there's where she really get's into detail. Very hard to argue there's not obstruction, there is BLATANT OPEN obstruction, over and over.:roll::2mad:

If one is rational, it's undeniable.:roll:

What's meaningless drivel is absolutely anything Rachel Maddow says.
 

PoliSciXtina

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2018
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
1,278
Location
SC
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you can't be bothered to watch this, your comments are meaningless drivel. I know how conservatives love to bray about how much they Hate Maddow but she does her homeswork, and not a single point she makes is something that isn't easily verifiable. I mean I'm not going to alt-right sites lieke Breitbart, but I will watch Fox news videos I see posted before giving my opinion on the matter and AFAIK almost all of us on the left willl look at legit conservative news sources, so at least do us that favor?


Really, if you hate Maddow that much, even start around the 10 minute mark because there's where she really get's into detail. Very hard to argue there's not obstruction, there is BLATANT OPEN obstruction, over and over.:roll::2mad:

If one is rational, it's undeniable.:roll:

I watch Rachel every night now. She is brilliant. I feel lost if I don’t catch her show. If it’s someone else covering for her, I don’t watch, ha. Trump bots hate her because they don’t like the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

PoliSciXtina

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2018
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
1,278
Location
SC
Political Leaning
Liberal
She makes a lot of connections based on "reportedly" type stuff. In effect, she is basing her whole screed on rumors.

Dismissed.

Do you actually think you are really “dismissing” people? Who are you?? God almighty? Comical, truly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Isn't that called citing sources? I would rather her say that than state her premises as accepted fact.

Sure. She is citing sources. Problem is...her sources are rumors.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you actually think you are really “dismissing” people? Who are you?? God almighty? Comical, truly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't get excited.

When I dismiss people, that's my way of telling them our conversation is over. There's nothing personal about it for you to get your _______ (pick a word that won't offend you) in a bunch.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,999
Reaction score
6,214
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure. She is citing sources. Problem is...her sources are rumors.

A few were. Most were well documented. And I think speculation was the whole point. She was taking some facts and using those to suss out which rumors were most likely to be true. Obviously she doesn't have proof and she doesn't know for sure, but I think the point was to point out that complete innocence is highly unlikely at this point with the facts as they stand, and obstruction of justice is all but assured. Not definite, but nearly so.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A few were. Most were well documented. And I think speculation was the whole point. She was taking some facts and using those to suss out which rumors were most likely to be true. Obviously she doesn't have proof and she doesn't know for sure, but I think the point was to point out that complete innocence is highly unlikely at this point with the facts as they stand, and obstruction of justice is all but assured. Not definite, but nearly so.

Sorry, but rumors are not facts. Rumors do not make the case for obstruction of justice "all but assured". In fact, rumors don't even make obstruction of justice a possibility.

But hey...if you enjoy rumors...if you enjoy the speculation based on rumors...then, by all means, keep watching Maddow.

Just don't be disappointed when she's proven to be wrong. I'd hate to see you cry like she did.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,999
Reaction score
6,214
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, but rumors are not facts. Rumors do not make the case for obstruction of justice "all but assured". In fact, rumors don't even make obstruction of justice a possibility.

All true. Rumors are not facts, and rumors alone don't make a case for obstruction of justice. Evidence based on facts do, of course, and the currently available evidence is weighed heavily in favor of an obstruction of justice charge, as laid out in the video in the op.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,321
Reaction score
12,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hey...you are welcome to count the number of times Maddow uses the words "reportedly", "apparently", "according to...", etc. All you have to do is watch the video.
you are welcome to explain how reporting = rumor.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you can't be bothered to watch this, your comments are meaningless drivel. I know how conservatives love to bray about how much they Hate Maddow but she does her homeswork, and not a single point she makes is something that isn't easily verifiable. I mean I'm not going to alt-right sites lieke Breitbart, but I will watch Fox news videos I see posted before giving my opinion on the matter and AFAIK almost all of us on the left willl look at legit conservative news sources, so at least do us that favor?


Really, if you hate Maddow that much, even start around the 10 minute mark because there's where she really get's into detail. Very hard to argue there's not obstruction, there is BLATANT OPEN obstruction, over and over.:roll::2mad:

If one is rational, it's undeniable.:roll:

laughing baby pee.jpg
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All true. Rumors are not facts, and rumors alone don't make a case for obstruction of justice. Evidence based on facts do, of course, and the currently available evidence is weighed heavily in favor of an obstruction of justice charge, as laid out in the video in the op.

The only problem...Maddow relies on rumors in her video.

sigh...

Tell you what. How about you do what she DIDN'T do? Make the case she was trying to make...but don't rely on rumors. Do that and I'll take a look at it.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,600
Reaction score
30,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
you are welcome to explain how reporting = rumor.

The stuff that she cited...that was "reported"...was stuff from unnamed sources. It had absolutely no credible support. Most of it, in fact, was soundly denied and dismissed as false.

That stuff is rumor.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,999
Reaction score
6,214
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The only problem...Maddow relies on rumors in her video.

sigh...

Tell you what. How about you do what she DIDN'T do? Make the case she was trying to make...but don't rely on rumors. Do that and I'll take a look at it.

Can I start with one and maybe go from there?

Donald Trump lied about his connections with Russia.

"I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success." 2014

"I never met Putin. I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me. He said I'm a genius. I said thank you very much to the newspaper and that was the end of it. I never met Putin." 2016


Established fact, correct?
 

slick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
1,768
Location
Nassau County, Long Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'll summarize. I missed this last night and am taking notes now, figured this was an excuse to delay my work more. It's hasty so it is what it is :)

History of Nixon and his administrations many misdeeds.

Many of Nixon's senior folks already indicted on federal charges, and the Grand Jury names Nixon as a co-conspirator to these crimes.
Nixon's legal team challenged this. Challenges if the evidence in this case was sufficient to warrant naming him as a co-conspirator.
Judiciary committee in congress wrote to the special prosecutor and said "present the evidence that warranted naming Nixon".

They said "OK, here it comes".
Many, many pages of detailed evidence detailed many crimes, including many examples of obstruction.
joined criminal conspiracy to obstruct and commit perjury
- making false statements
- offers of clemency and lenience
- obtaining information form the justice department to thwart the investigation
- making and facilitating the making of false statements
- influencing aides to give false information
- obstruction of a congressional committee
etc.etc.
-
Point being, many of these sound precisely like Trump-team efforts, and they were all stacked up by the special prosecutor for Nixon.
Also notice it was congress asking the special prosecutor for the evidence, of particular interest in the post-Whitaker AG (Trump partisan).

She then recounts a lot of the big examples of Trump obstruction. It started with two exapmles showing key people being questioned by congress on this, and how they all dodged/avoided answering...awkwardly so.

1. Reports break that President directly asks Coats and head of NSA (Mike) to make public statements to say they knew Trump hadn't colluded with Russia.
- Coats asked and won't answer
- Mike Rogers is asked the same, also refuses to answer.

2. trump also asked Coats and Pompeo to interfere with Comey's investigations - Pompeo refuses to answer, and says "I don't recall"

3. Comey was asked to back off investigation into Flynn
4. Trump directed sessions to not recuse because he felt he can't control the investigation
5. Trump asked the AG to stop the investigation (Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt right now". Guilianni says he wasn't serious.
6. retweeting the picture of everyone opposing him behind bars, asked why Rosenstein should be behind bars. Trump responds - she should have never picked a special counsel.
7. In june told white house counsel to fire special counsel
8. Again in December
9. aug 9th last year, to Mitch McConnell for refusing to protected Trump from the Russian investigation
10. directed senate leadership to stop the senate intelligence committee investigation into Russian meddling
11. personally helped concoct false statements about the Trump Tower meeting for Don Jr.
12. President's attorneys discussed pardons with Manafort and Flynn
13. Trump specifically says a pardon for Manafort is on the table
14. Trump's attorney's bragging that Manafort, a convicted felon, while supposedly cooperating with Mueller, was feeding information to them
15. firing sessions and installing Whitaker, a partisan, conflicted, Trump loyalist who is not qualified to be AG
16. Trump admits he installed Whitaker because of the Russia investigation
17 Recently departed FBI General Counsel Jim Baker, seemingly in response, writes a piece about Nixon using contact with the Justice Department to spy on the investigation into him (Nixon).
- (for the purpose of thwarting the investigation)

Her claim is that while we have a huge spread of evidence now (thanks to people who requested it be released) about Nixon, this list of Trump's looks far greater.

The problem with your comparison is that Nixon was the only 2 term president in history that never had either branch
of congress in the majority during his entire time as president, never once. So he was vulnerable, Trump is not because
for his first 4 years he'll have the senate & had the house for 2 of his first four years. Nixon simply had no coat tails
like Trump!
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,321
Reaction score
12,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The problem with your comparison is that Nixon was the only 2 term president in history that never had either branch
of congress in the majority during his entire time as president, never once. So he was vulnerable, Trump is not because for his first 4 years he'll have the senate & had the house for 2 of his first four years. Nixon simply had no coat tails
like Trump!

First, slick, it's not my comparison, it's my summation of Maddow's.

Second, how would Nixon's crimes be magically different than Trump's crimes, just because of congressional majority control?

You appear to be suggesting that it's OK that Trump committed crimes like Nixon because he has a Republican congress that protects him. Lack of ethics of supporting such a position aside, what's their to debate? If you feel we should all commit as many crimes against one another that we can get away with, OK, thanks for letting us know.
 
Top Bottom