• 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!

Donald Trump is done playing nice with Bob Mueller

given the history of mid-term elections i do not see it as a reflection of anything.

This goes back starting with clinton.

He had a democratic majority in the house and the senate next election lost it.
bush jr had the same thing and lost it.
obama had the same thing and lost a super majority
trump has a majority and will lose it.

why? because something with the american people deem that it is not a good idea to have 1 party in charge of everything.
why? because they forget why they have that majority and start doing stupid **** to make them lose.

it isn't a message as far as the GOP goes it is just following a pattern. even though it will get blown out of proportion by the media.

History does show that every president since FDR has lost seats in congress in their first midterm with one lone exception, G.W. Bush who gained 8 seats in the House. But that was due to 9-11 happening which caused the country to unite behind Bush and his party. He did lose 33 seats in 2006 midterms.

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934

I do agree one of the reasons for the loses is that they do start doing stupid things or go against the majority wishes of Americans. The question basically becomes how many seats will the party that holds the White House lose?
 
I agree.
On the one hand, the combination of the established right wing media organization and coordination with the White House is proven effective yet again.
But adding on top of that the C.A. provided "messages" to hammer on that will resonate with their base, makes sure the right wing media organizations guns are targeted at the right places. An effective combination. I think that Bannon/C.A. found what resonated, and Trump was molded to embrace those things. As such, I do not think that Trump is the real issue here...he can be replaced by anyone as long as they work with the targeting/messaging that's been established. In other words, Trump being good/bad will be overshadowed by the clear good that the sophisticated targeting they use, is effective, and will likely continue to be used in the future.

As to Trump specifically being good/bad, I agree, a large part of that will depend on the Mueller investigation.

Perhaps the message was that Americans were just tired as business as usual. Clinton and the Democrats represented that, Hillary promising to be an Obama third term. The establishment Republicans represented that. Lot's of rhetoric, very little action. Trump just might have had the right message, but is turning out to be the wrong messenger. That will be answered in time also.

what I think is each party has their own agenda. Yet, each party's agenda isn't seen by most folks as America's agenda. This is why we, the people will give the Republicans control of congress in 1994 after 40 years of straight Democratic rule, then reverse course in 2006 going back to the Democrats, back to Republicans in 2010 and I'm sure in 2018, we'll bring back the democrats. Going from Republican Bush I to Bill Clinton back to Bush II, then to Obama and now Trump, perhaps we saying, hey wait, we don't want a strictly Republican or democratic agenda. We want an American one.

Most people are somewhere in the middle between the two major parties. I think having the two major parties continue their movement further left and right away from mainstream America and its people is why the two major parties have shrunk and people have left them to become independents. According to Pew Research and Gallup, in 2000 independents made up just 30% of the electorate, 35% in 2012 and a whopping 45% today. Give or take a point or two depending on which poll one uses.

I remember, I'm an old fart, when the Democratic Party was the big tent party. when from FDR until 1994 they controlled the House 56 out of 60 years and the senate 50 out of 60 with six of the ten GOP held senate occurring during Reagan. Now it seems one must take a litmus test to be a Democrat. No more big tent. I do miss the old days.

what do we have today, The Democrats representing the northeast and west coast with a couple of island states around the great lakes. The GOP has flyover country. There was a time when each party had its liberal and conservative wings. Oh well, enough living in the past. I don't think either party represents America's interest anymore. Just their own. Hence a Trump can get elected and he doesn't in my opinion represent America's interest either. He just appealed to some who wanted him or viewed him as doing so.

He certainly wasn't business as usual.
 
History does show that every president since FDR has lost seats in congress in their first midterm with one lone exception, G.W. Bush who gained 8 seats in the House. But that was due to 9-11 happening which caused the country to unite behind Bush and his party. He did lose 33 seats in 2006 midterms.

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934

I do agree one of the reasons for the loses is that they do start doing stupid things or go against the majority wishes of Americans. The question basically becomes how many seats will the party that holds the White House lose?

yep that is the question.
 
That is you opinion and that is fine. It is a good analogy his charge was to look into Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Not to review his life's dealings and find out if he ever dealt with mobsters. Pretty sure builders of large projects in NYC have to deal with a bunch of crooks, including crooked politicians.

I guess my standards are higher than yours. Quite the low bar I must say.

cYVlcdt.jpg
 
For those particular witnesses, it's obstruction.
Firing Comey.
Meeting with McGhan : "the president ordered Mueller fired last June, but White House counsel Don McGahn defied him."
Meeting with Priebus

All evidence that can be used in an obstruction case. If prosecuted, that would result in McCabe and Comey being witnesses against Trump.

How can you not know this? Are you saying attacking witnesses BEFORE you're convicted is OK, because there isn't a crime proven yet? That would be all kinds of stupid to suggest...surely you didn't mean to?

My guess is they won't try obstruction unless they underlying crimes, and they may not find those. If Putin has blackmail on Trump, for example, we'll never know. That's based on what we now in public. Who knows what evidence Mueller has...

None of those are obstruction.
They work for the president and can be fired for any reason at any time. so there goes your obstruction charges.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/opin...am-dunk-obstruction-polisi-opinion/index.html

every now and then it takes an opinion for cnn to get it right.

First, obstruction of justice in this case likely would not be charged as a single act. Instead, Mueller will likely analyze the totality of circumstances described above in conjunction with any evidence of Trump's "corrupt intent." It is this criminal intent that is by far the most important -- and the most difficult -- element for prosecutors to prove in any criminal case. Without an underlying crime ("collusion" as we've taken to calling it in the press, even though there is no crime labeled as such), of which Trump was aware, prosecutors will have a much more difficult time proving the intent element of any obstruction charge.

Unlike clinton intent is actually a requirement.
 
Wasn't the white water incident before Clinton became president?
 
None of those are obstruction.
They work for the president and can be fired for any reason at any time. so there goes your obstruction charges.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/opin...am-dunk-obstruction-polisi-opinion/index.html

every now and then it takes an opinion for cnn to get it right.

First, obstruction of justice in this case likely would not be charged as a single act. Instead, Mueller will likely analyze the totality of circumstances described above in conjunction with any evidence of Trump's "corrupt intent." It is this criminal intent that is by far the most important -- and the most difficult -- element for prosecutors to prove in any criminal case. Without an underlying crime ("collusion" as we've taken to calling it in the press, even though there is no crime labeled as such), of which Trump was aware, prosecutors will have a much more difficult time proving the intent element of any obstruction charge.

Unlike clinton intent is actually a requirement.

Trump is not above the law. That these investigators worked for him is beside the point. They were involved in an active investigation of Trump's wrongdoing & he obstructed justice a) by telling Comey to go easy on Flynn, b) by firing Comey when he refused, and c) orchestrating the firing of McCabe. Here you go:

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
 
I guess my standards are higher than yours. Quite the low bar I must say.

cYVlcdt.jpg

Good to see you have high self-esteem. Regardless if it is deserved. Not sure your reading comprehension is up to par.
 
None of those are obstruction.
They are evidence of a potential obstruction charge. That's a fact. If he's found guilty of obstruction, then it would have been obstruction...

They work for the president and can be fired for any reason at any time. so there goes your obstruction charges.
You apparently have no idea what obstruction of justice is.
“If Trump exercises his power — even his lawful power — with a corrupt motive of interfering with an investigation, that’s obstruction,” says Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert on criminal law at Duke University. “The attempt is sufficient, and it seems to be a matter of public record already.”

First, obstruction of justice in this case likely would not be charged as a single act. Instead, Mueller will likely analyze the totality of circumstances described above in conjunction with any evidence of Trump's "corrupt intent." It is this criminal intent that is by far the most important -- and the most difficult -- element for prosecutors to prove in any criminal case. Without an underlying crime ("collusion" as we've taken to calling it in the press, even though there is no crime labeled as such), of which Trump was aware, prosecutors will have a much more difficult time proving the intent element of any obstruction charge.

Good thing Trump has communicated his intent on video, and in tweets, etc.! The guy wears his intent on is sleeve. And I already said in my own post it would be hard without an underlying crime. Of course it woudl be hard to prove. It's hard to nail most organized crime bosses, what can we say.

Mueller is looking into evidence of obstruction. McCabe and Comey are potential witnesses to that. Trump attacked McCabe ultimately fired him. Trump also talked to some individuals who had been interviewed by Mueller *another* no-no.

Keep it up!
 
Perhaps the message was that Americans were just tired as business as usual.
That too. Grass is greener. That's marketing 101. Find a way to differentiate. Being "not the status quo" is an obvious way to differentiate. It's an emotional/pleasure driven desire to have such change, it's not based on reason IMO. A surgeon should operate on me with the approved method, and not experiment on me...ya know? Art, research relationships, food...these things I like to mix it up. Not governance...

Gambling has that element too. Smart money is on not gambling...but the need to roll the dice for that *chance* for win. Enough moderates decided to roll the dice on Trump (and IMO lost it all).

Good news is that Trump's insanity gets old after a wall too, I was ready after month 3 to get back to boring politics. Alas!
 
That too. Grass is greener. That's marketing 101. Find a way to differentiate. Being "not the status quo" is an obvious way to differentiate. It's an emotional/pleasure driven desire to have such change, it's not based on reason IMO. A surgeon should operate on me with the approved method, and not experiment on me...ya know? Art, research relationships, food...these things I like to mix it up. Not governance...

Gambling has that element too. Smart money is on not gambling...but the need to roll the dice for that *chance* for win. Enough moderates decided to roll the dice on Trump (and IMO lost it all).

Good news is that Trump's insanity gets old after a wall too, I was ready after month 3 to get back to boring politics. Alas!

LOL, Trump is many things, but boring isn't one of them. Sure, Trump stood out as different. Enough folks were tired enough of the status quo they went with different. But few people would change their vote from 2016 even today. I voted against both Clinton and Trump, if the election were held today, I still would vote third party against both of them.

The problem was neither one was wanted outside of their avid supporters. If you weren't an avid supporter of either Trump or Clinton, most of the rest voted for the candidate they wanted the least to lose.
 
Trump is not above the law. That these investigators worked for him is beside the point. They were involved in an active investigation of Trump's wrongdoing & he obstructed justice a) by telling Comey to go easy on Flynn, b) by firing Comey when he refused, and c) orchestrating the firing of McCabe. Here you go:

since no one has said he is you are arguing a strawman. actually no it isn't. Actually they weren't involved in such a thing. Comey stated multiple times that trump himself was not under investigation.
actually no he didn't. Comey testified to such in a court of law unless comey wants to perjure himself now.

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

Right and trump has done none of that.

then again you really don't care about applying the same standards across the board.
And you hit the nail on the head specific intent.

something they can't prove and they have no evidence of and neither do you.

Unlike clinton this actually requires intent.
 
They are evidence of a potential obstruction charge. That's a fact. If he's found guilty of obstruction, then it would have been obstruction...
Not really. they are only evidence because you want them to be not that they actually are.

You apparently have no idea what obstruction of justice is.

actually i do. and comey and others have testified that nothing has been done to interfere with the election.
so are you calling them a liar, or do you just not want to accept facts?

Good thing Trump has communicated his intent on video, and in tweets, etc.! The guy wears his intent on is sleeve. And I already said in my own post it would be hard without an underlying crime. Of course it woudl be hard to prove. It's hard to nail most organized crime bosses, what can we say.

prove he is a crime boss. more baseless accusations just like everything else.

Mueller is looking into evidence of obstruction. McCabe and Comey are potential witnesses to that. Trump attacked McCabe ultimately fired him. Trump also talked to some individuals who had been interviewed by Mueller *another* no-no.

Keep it up!

unless comey perjured himself in court that is a dead end.
McCabe wasnt' fired by Trump you have no clue what you are talking about.

He was fired by Sessions on the recommendation of the FBI department of ethics based on a report from the IG.
again facts vs TDS rants win every time.

you guys need to get your TDS under control.
 
Good to see you have high self-esteem. Regardless if it is deserved. Not sure your reading comprehension is up to par.

So you lose because you went to a personal attack.

I merely said my standards were higher as you seem to want the president to slide on all of his egregious behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom