Brilliant Idea from John Dean

[trouble13]

I admit, sometimes the line between personal and public gain can be hard to see. This isn't one of those times, though. But let's say it was - let's say it was a hard call to make. Guess what? The President has a team of some of the best lawyers in the country at his disposal - it's called the White House Counsel's office. Their main job is to give the President legal guidance and help keep him on the right side of the line. They represent the Office of the President - not the person who happens to be President. So if the President doesn't seek the advice of the White House Counsel before he acts - or he ignores the advice he's given - then the consequences of his actions are his alone.

But the White House Counsel's office is just the last line of defense for the President - there are also procedural safeguards in place so that Government officials - including the President - don't inadvertently abuse their power. If the President chooses to ignore these procedural protections or goes around them, the consequences are also on him.

I don't know how else to explain this... to be perfectly frank, from my perspective, President Trump's actions seem to verge on self-destructive. I actually think that subconsciously he wants to be removed from office. I say that as a layman, of course - I'm not by any means a mental health professional - but that's the only explanation I can think of for his actions. It's the same pattern he's displayed in his business career - he always seems to want to keep pushing the line until he goes over it... and then keep going. I don't know from what dark place in his psyche this compulsion originates, but it's pretty obviously there.

I dont see it as clear cut as you do but if the dem9vrats want to make an accusation they also have the burden to prove it. So far they have not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Pound4abrown]

Good claim, are you any closer to actually proving that claim than before?

Because plenty of us are still waiting.

And plenty of you would die with your boots on for Trump while he continues to weaken the nation.
So I am not really sure what your point is.

 

[trouble13]

Well, like the Miranda warning says "...anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law". There's a reason why any lawyer worth his salt advises a client not to comment publicly about ongoing legal proceedings. Go back and read the record from the Clinton Impeachment - you think President Clinton didn't have an opinion about what was going on? You bet your ass he did. But how much did he actually comment on it? There's a smart way to go about things and there's a dumb way to go about them that just makes things worse for your case. If and to the extent that President Trump chooses the dumb way, well, that's on him.

Sure Trump is responsible for his words but his words do not qualify as witness intimidation. What Trump isnt responsible for, is every accusation thats made about him. He isnt responsible to disprove any of them either. Nor is he responsible to justify himself to any of you. The burden is always on the accusers to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

And plenty of you would die with your boots on for Trump while he continues to weaken the nation.
So I am not really sure what your point is.

Can you specify how is weakening the country?
Our military strength has increased under his administration. Our economic strength has increased under his administration.
Our international obligations are decreasing under his administration.
He is the first president in modern history who has not started a war.
By all those metrics he has improved america. What metrics are you using to support your claim?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Hypothetical]

So yes, the decision is to just abuse power to get your way and keep it like that.

yeah let them do that and we will see how the independent voters take a blatant abuse of power as opposed to a supposed abuse of it in the upcoming elections

 

[Oborosen]

And plenty of you would die with your boots on for Trump while he continues to weaken the nation.
So I am not really sure what your point is.

Deflection recognized.

 

[Oborosen]

yeah let them do that and we will see how the independent voters take a blatant abuse of power as opposed to a supposed abuse of it in the upcoming elections

From how the polls are turning out, even though I don't really put much stock in polls. I'd say that it's pretty much biting the democrats in the ass on a nonstop basis.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Why? Seriously? What makes you think the Senate has to sit around and wait for the House once the House has passed articles of impeachment?

Why wouldn't they sit around and wait on the house? The house has passed hundreds of bills that the Senate Majority Leader give no ****s about and they are sitting on his desk. In essence the house is sitting and waiting around for them to do their jobs.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Its no different than the BS they pulled on Merrick Garland.

#truestory

 

[Pound4abrown]

I think we should convict anyone, period.
Did someone say you shoplifted? Good, you are guilty.
Did someone accuse you of rape? Guilty.
Did someone say you committed fraud? Guilty.
Oh, and you are also guilty of crimes that haven't happened yet. Just wait. We'll find something to accuse you of.
Brilliant.

Did someone engage in uncontrolled hyperbole? Guilty. Gulag for you.

 

[Pound4abrown]

It would mean that the stonewalling and obstructionism of the republicans would end since the House would have the leisure time to fight the refusals of subpoenas in a court and obtain the 98% of materials withheld given over to them and to have the dozen or more witnesses who broke the law by refusing a Congressional subpoena to be compelled to appear.

This argument does not convince me. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that even if SCOTUS told Trump and his Admin that they needed to comply with document requests and subpoenas, that he would, in fact, do so.

 

[Pound4abrown]

I don't think it's a good idea at all. While on the process side it may make sense, I don't think it's going to do anything to help on the PR side. If the intent is to have it be an albatross around Trump's neck, that can quickly backfire and actually serve the administration's narrative even further. The investigation's length should have been decided at the beginning of the process, but the Democrats decided on quick action rather than a drawn out approach.

Personally, I don't think the Democrats are going to get much more out of this. They conducted the investigation, we all heard testimony, and now it's with the House Judiciary Committee. If there's enough there to get it to the Senate, then that's where it should go, but I think everyone knew the outcome of that from the very beginning. What needed to turn up was incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing to make it iron clad when it got to the Senate. While in my opinion, something does stink, there hasn't been enough presented as the undeniable evidence that would force the GOP into a corner.

On a side note, what is being missed here by a mile, is a case being made by the Democrats on how any one of their candidates are going to maintain the economic gains we've been experiencing. If they don't make that case, they're going to lose. If they present a candidate who will ensure voters the economy will continue to prosper but they'll have less of the circus, it's a sound choice for voters to decide. Right now it's boiling down to economic status quo + circus, or expensive pie in the sky ideas that might hurt economic growth.

-Werd.

 

[HumblePi]

This argument does not convince me. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that even if SCOTUS told Trump and his Admin that they needed to comply with document requests and subpoenas, that he would, in fact, do so.

It's' true, it would take years of back and forth in courts in order to get testimonies and documents. That's why Democrats stated that they cannot risk national security and an ongoing destruction of the Constitution for that long. He would be free to break laws, enlist the aid of foreign governments to help him win another term and pretty much mess up government beyond repair. Maybe it's not too late yet but from what I see coming from Bill Barr, we're far from being out of danger.

 

[Cordelier]

I dont see it as clear cut as you do but if the dem9vrats want to make an accusation they also have the burden to prove it. So far they have not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Read the transcript.

 

[Cordelier]

Sure Trump is responsible for his words but his words do not qualify as witness intimidation. What Trump isnt responsible for, is every accusation thats made about him. He isnt responsible to disprove any of them either. Nor is he responsible to justify himself to any of you. The burden is always on the accusers to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well, I don't know about you... but if my boss was talking about me in negative terms on Twitter or on the South Lawn of the White House, I'd feel intimidated.