BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #18811  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:35 AM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,222
Default

Yup let Congress pass the law and then let it be fought out in court.

This is where you miss my point pete.

Quote:
If Mueller and his team had made a public determination about a prosecutorial decision... if they had come right out and said, "But for the OLC decision, we'd have indicted him."
Mueller could had looked at the facts, weighted the evidence, document both and then said nothing or he could have said the OLC saved him for now. Then the House could step in, enter the report into the record and try to impeach.Now we have dark clouds and a House that is sidetracked from doing the Peoples Business such as those that I previously listed.

Quote:
then Trump would have zero recourse to clear his name until after he left office. At a minimum, that's fundamentally unfair to anyone to deny them due process to clear their name. At its worst, it would've been an unelected law enforcement official making an extremely explosive accusation with the POTUS having no avenue to clear his name that could, very plausibly, politically cripple his ability to perform the duties of the Chief Executive.
He does have recourse through impeachment. Muller failed in his job. Mueller did look at evidence in the incidents in Part 1, some of which included the President. In Part 2 he listed incidents that took place and then failed to even look at a single one to see if there was a violation. Doesn't this bother you? If the President, any President, had violated a law so be it. Say so and then state why you would not indict. The President would still have recourse if the House chose to impeach. He would still have his say in a trial in the Senate.

Isn't that exactly what Mueller did when he said he " could not exonerate" him? Isn't our #1 rule of law that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't that leave a huge cloud over someone's head when it is claimed that they could not be exonerated?

Quote:
War game that scenario in your mind. Say Mueller had taken that power for himself. Say he decided that the OLC decision constrained him from indicting the POTUS, but that it didn't constrain him from making the accusation that Trump was a criminal. How would you have reacted, knowing Trump had no recourse to clear his name? You'd be shrieking Mueller was conducting a political hit job on behalf of the Deep State from the top of your lungs. You'd be calling it a "coup" and fundamentally unfair to both Trump and to the Republican Party, in general. And there'd be a scintilla of truth in what you'd be saying, because there would be an underlying lack of fairness in the situation. I damned sure wouldn't want a Democratic POTUS to be accused of a crime without having any recourse to clear their name. That'd be some bullshit.
Question.....did you see the Muller's 9 minute press conference. In it he said he thought the OLC was unconstitutional. I found that odd that he would had said something like that.

As to the war game...Ö.that is like my wife questioning you about a series of rapes (sorry). All your friends know that you were questioned. How would you feel if she said she could not "exonerate" you? If she ever said anything like that I would be the first to say she should be fired as that leaves a huge cloud hanging over you. That is why a house member took Mueller to task over using that word.

The more appropriate wording should be that we are just ruling our suspects.
__________________
Said Schiff: ďI think thereís plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.Ē
Reply With Quote
  #18812  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:04 PM
Puckhead's Avatar
Puckhead Puckhead is offline
Guy Boucher's One-Three-One
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,266
Default The "white/Trump" voter

I'll preface this by saying that this is not based on any hard, demographic or opinion data set.

My feeling is that Trump's "base" consists of at least two separate and distinct groups of mostly white voters.

1. Financially, this group's balance sheets range from comfortably well off financially, to those approaching the 1% i.e. net worths over $1M+. These folks are certainly not "anxious" about their economic future. They ARE anxious about immigration, and what they think it's going to cost to process those seeking asylum. And, in the back of their heads, they simply fear and don't like those of different color and ethnicity. Many in this group are, and always have been overtly or covertly racist.

2. Again financially, the other group of white voters, some of whom went for Obama twice, are indeed economically anxious. They've seen a broad swath of manufacturing jobs disappear in the last 15 years, and particularly since the downturn in 2008. If they owned homes, they got crushed. Home ownership was a large and perhaps exclusive chunk of their net worth. Trump tells them he'll bring back those jobs, AND that the "other" is coming to "infest" their communities with crime and drugs.

I'm thinking and hoping that at least a third of the two groups above are inclined to react to a positive message. Angst about Trump's behavior and threats to the democracy are a given. Trump's electoral victories in the Midwestern states was around 75,000 votes. D's stayed home and R's of both groups came out strong in PA, OH, MI and WI.

To win back the non-bigoted but economically anxious white vote in Pa, OH, MI and Wi, the Democrats should EQUALLY talk about health care, manufacturing, a renewable (and good jobs based) energy economy AS WELL AS what DJT is doing to the fabric of this country's founding principles.

My hometown Detroit is rising from the ashes, as Mayor Duggan outlined, by attracting high tech IT millenials, high tech auto-related systems, and training of non-college folks to play a role in the actual roll out of the two areas just mentioned.

No Democratic candidate will win over the always prejudiced, "we're victims of a changing society" folk, many of whom are high net worth and benefitted from the tax giveaway of 2018 and support the cruel treatment of migrants and "the other". But an enthusiastic D turnout along with some of the folk I mentioned above should be more than enough to send the grabber-in-chief packing.
Reply With Quote
  #18813  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:31 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,214
Default

This is one of those cases where I legitimately cannot tell if you're being deliberately mendacious out of tribal partisan loyalty or if you're really and truly just completely obtuse.

Let me see if I can correctly summarize your position:

You're saying that the OSC did not investigate Trump for obstruction of justice based on a semantic interpretation of one video clip nestled within 8-9 hours of Congressional testimony? That's your position?

Let's test your theory, as insanely wrong as it is:

1.) If that were the case, how did the OSC arrive at the number of 11 acts of potential obstruction. Why not 3? Or 10? Or 537? Are we to believe the number of acts of potential obstruction was not based on evidence-gathering and analysis, but rather that they picked a number out of a hat? Threw darts at a dart board? Does that make common sense to you?

2.) If that were the case, what do you call all of the evidence presented in the Mueller Report? What do you call all the witnesses who were interviewed, Grand Jury testimony that was conducted, the e-mails and letters that were taken, the other electronic communications that were seized? Pray tell, what do you call that? In my universe, where the sky is blue and water is wet, we call that an investigation. The acts of obstruction were investigated, they just weren't allowed to make a charging decision or elaborate in public about what it would have been had they been allowed to make that charging decision.

As I've stated to you over and over again, what Mueller meant is: 1.) The OLC opinion meant that the OSC was not allowed to indict a sitting POTUS. Therefore, 2.) As stated in the report and his press conference, they were not allowed to issue an opinion about a charging decision because to do so would have left no due process recourse for Trump to clear his name until after he left office, which is fundamentally unfair. And, 3.) Mueller's team did have the ability to issue a charging opinion if they felt there was no wrongdoing (i.e. an "exoneration" of Trump). They said they could not. 4.) As stated in the Report and by Mueller in his press conference, despite the fact that the POTUS cannot be charged per the OLC opinion, the OSC's investigatory work was still necessary in order to collect and memorialize the evidence before it was destroyed or lost. Why? 5.) Because Congress has a remedy to hold Trump accountable (impeachment) and also, as per Mueller's testimony, the second that Trump no longer holds that office and is no longer shielded by the OLC opinion, he can be indicted.

And if we are to believe over 1,000 former federal prosecutors, a prima facie review of the evidence in the Mueller Report says a sufficient case exists to, indeed, indict Trump for obstruction and that, were it not for the OLC opinion, he'd already be in a jumpsuit of a color that matches his spray tan.

Quote:
He does have recourse through impeachment.
The Executive Branch does not trigger impeachment proceedings. Do we need to buy you all the Schoolhouse Rock DVD's?

Quote:
Doesn't this bother you? If the President, any President, had violated a law so be it. Say so and then state why you would not indict.
It bothers me that the OLC opinion is stupid and creates the muddy waters that creates this situation. There's nothing in the Constitution stating that a POTUS cannot be indicted. Congress should weigh in (but won't, thanks to Moscow Mitch) and put forth a law clarifying that a sitting POTUS can be indicted of a felony.

As it is, taken to the extreme, per the OLC opinion, if Donald Trump stood up in the middle of a cabinet meeting and slit Mike Pence's throat, he could not be charged with murder until he left office. That's insane.

It also bothers me, though, that you're naive enough to believe that even if Mueller had chosen to make public a charging decision that Trump should be indicted that Barr would've allowed it to happen. Go back an watch the video with Judge Napolitano again. He's absolutely correct. Barr would've never allowed it in a million years, because Barr got the job by sending a letter to the DOJ detailing his opinion that POTUS's, constitutionally, cannot be indicted, etc. etc. It's horse spit, but he'd already pre-judged such a decision before he ever was confirmed.

Quote:
Question.....did you see the Muller's 9 minute press conference. In it he said he thought the OLC was unconstitutional. I found that odd that he would had said something like that.
I don't believe he said that, exactly, otherwise it would have been much bigger news.

With that said, there is nothing the the US Constitution that says a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. Had Nixon not resigned, the DOJ would've indicted him in Watergate within another week or two, per the lawyers who worked in that office. Unfortunately, that never happened, so it's still a matter of unsettled law.

Quote:
The more appropriate wording should be that we are just ruling our suspects.
Semantics aside, the DOJ has issued statements regarding their prosecutorial decisions in high profile cases, such as the decision not to charge (i.e. "exonerate," if you will) Hillary Clinton for the e-mail server scandal. If they could have cleared Trump, as Mueller stated, they would have. The OLC opinion does not bar the OSC from stating that their charging opinion was that Trump was clean, if they believed that. They could've exonerated him if the facts supported it. They didn't.

Ergo (for Donnie)...

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
__________________
S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 05
Reply With Quote
  #18814  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:41 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead View Post
I'll preface this by saying that this is not based on any hard, demographic or opinion data set.

My feeling is that Trump's "base" consists of at least two separate and distinct groups of mostly white voters.

1. Financially, this group's balance sheets range from comfortably well off financially, to those approaching the 1% i.e. net worths over $1M+. These folks are certainly not "anxious" about their economic future. They ARE anxious about immigration, and what they think it's going to cost to process those seeking asylum. And, in the back of their heads, they simply fear and don't like those of different color and ethnicity. Many in this group are, and always have been overtly or covertly racist.

2. Again financially, the other group of white voters, some of whom went for Obama twice, are indeed economically anxious. They've seen a broad swath of manufacturing jobs disappear in the last 15 years, and particularly since the downturn in 2008. If they owned homes, they got crushed. Home ownership was a large and perhaps exclusive chunk of their net worth. Trump tells them he'll bring back those jobs, AND that the "other" is coming to "infest" their communities with crime and drugs.

I'm thinking and hoping that at least a third of the two groups above are inclined to react to a positive message. Angst about Trump's behavior and threats to the democracy are a given. Trump's electoral victories in the Midwestern states was around 75,000 votes. D's stayed home and R's of both groups came out strong in PA, OH, MI and WI.

To win back the non-bigoted but economically anxious white vote in Pa, OH, MI and Wi, the Democrats should EQUALLY talk about health care, manufacturing, a renewable (and good jobs based) energy economy AS WELL AS what DJT is doing to the fabric of this country's founding principles.

My hometown Detroit is rising from the ashes, as Mayor Duggan outlined, by attracting high tech IT millenials, high tech auto-related systems, and training of non-college folks to play a role in the actual roll out of the two areas just mentioned.

No Democratic candidate will win over the always prejudiced, "we're victims of a changing society" folk, many of whom are high net worth and benefitted from the tax giveaway of 2018 and support the cruel treatment of migrants and "the other". But an enthusiastic D turnout along with some of the folk I mentioned above should be more than enough to send the grabber-in-chief packing.
There's also a very strong link between education level and voting preference that you left out in your analysis. Even very well heeled folks, especially those in suburban areas that used to be reliably Republican, are breaking blue because Trump's brand of racism and misogyny doesn't play well with folks with a degree (many of whom have, gasp, gone to school and worked with accomplished brown people and women).

The scary thing is that, on paper, a Democrat could win by ~5M votes this time and Trump could still carry the Electoral College because of concentration of population in a handful of states and metropolitan regions.

The system's broken. Electoral College should be abolished and there should be a reinstatement and strengthening of the VRA.
__________________
S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 05
Reply With Quote
  #18815  
Old 07-31-2019, 03:21 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
This is one of those cases where I legitimately cannot tell if you're being deliberately mendacious out of tribal partisan loyalty or if you're really and truly just completely obtuse.

Let me see if I can correctly summarize your position:

You're saying that the OSC did not investigate Trump for obstruction of justice based on a semantic interpretation of one video clip nestled within 8-9 hours of Congressional testimony? That's your position?

Let's test your theory, as insanely wrong as it is:

1.) If that were the case, how did the OSC arrive at the number of 11 acts of potential obstruction. Why not 3? Or 10? Or 537? Are we to believe the number of acts of potential obstruction was not based on evidence-gathering and analysis, but rather that they picked a number out of a hat? Threw darts at a dart board? Does that make common sense to you?

2.) If that were the case, what do you call all of the evidence presented in the Mueller Report? What do you call all the witnesses who were interviewed, Grand Jury testimony that was conducted, the e-mails and letters that were taken, the other electronic communications that were seized? Pray tell, what do you call that? In my universe, where the sky is blue and water is wet, we call that an investigation. The acts of obstruction were investigated, they just weren't allowed to make a charging decision or elaborate in public about what it would have been had they been allowed to make that charging decision.

As I've stated to you over and over again, what Mueller meant is: 1.) The OLC opinion meant that the OSC was not allowed to indict a sitting POTUS. Therefore, 2.) As stated in the report and his press conference, they were not allowed to issue an opinion about a charging decision because to do so would have left no due process recourse for Trump to clear his name until after he left office, which is fundamentally unfair. And, 3.) Mueller's team did have the ability to issue a charging opinion if they felt there was no wrongdoing (i.e. an "exoneration" of Trump). They said they could not. 4.) As stated in the Report and by Mueller in his press conference, despite the fact that the POTUS cannot be charged per the OLC opinion, the OSC's investigatory work was still necessary in order to collect and memorialize the evidence before it was destroyed or lost. Why? 5.) Because Congress has a remedy to hold Trump accountable (impeachment) and also, as per Mueller's testimony, the second that Trump no longer holds that office and is no longer shielded by the OLC opinion, he can be indicted.

And if we are to believe over 1,000 former federal prosecutors, a prima facie review of the evidence in the Mueller Report says a sufficient case exists to, indeed, indict Trump for obstruction and that, were it not for the OLC opinion, he'd already be in a jumpsuit of a color that matches his spray tan.



The Executive Branch does not trigger impeachment proceedings. Do we need to buy you all the Schoolhouse Rock DVD's?



It bothers me that the OLC opinion is stupid and creates the muddy waters that creates this situation. There's nothing in the Constitution stating that a POTUS cannot be indicted. Congress should weigh in (but won't, thanks to Moscow Mitch) and put forth a law clarifying that a sitting POTUS can be indicted of a felony.

As it is, taken to the extreme, per the OLC opinion, if Donald Trump stood up in the middle of a cabinet meeting and slit Mike Pence's throat, he could not be charged with murder until he left office. That's insane.

It also bothers me, though, that you're naive enough to believe that even if Mueller had chosen to make public a charging decision that Trump should be indicted that Barr would've allowed it to happen. Go back an watch the video with Judge Napolitano again. He's absolutely correct. Barr would've never allowed it in a million years, because Barr got the job by sending a letter to the DOJ detailing his opinion that POTUS's, constitutionally, cannot be indicted, etc. etc. It's horse spit, but he'd already pre-judged such a decision before he ever was confirmed.



I don't believe he said that, exactly, otherwise it would have been much bigger news.

With that said, there is nothing the the US Constitution that says a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. Had Nixon not resigned, the DOJ would've indicted him in Watergate within another week or two, per the lawyers who worked in that office. Unfortunately, that never happened, so it's still a matter of unsettled law.



Semantics aside, the DOJ has issued statements regarding their prosecutorial decisions in high profile cases, such as the decision not to charge (i.e. "exonerate," if you will) Hillary Clinton for the e-mail server scandal. If they could have cleared Trump, as Mueller stated, they would have. The OLC opinion does not bar the OSC from stating that their charging opinion was that Trump was clean, if they believed that. They could've exonerated him if the facts supported it. They didn't.

Ergo (for Donnie)...

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
pete it is just not "a clip". It was Mueller's own words. He clearly stated that they didn't even consider the 11 incidents as the rules forbid them. It is just that simple. He was clarifying what he had said in the morning session. He knew exactly what he was saying.

Sometimes the little things matter.


Quote:
As it is, taken to the extreme, per the OLC opinion, if Donald Trump stood up in the middle of a cabinet meeting and slit Mike Pence's throat, he could not be charged with murder until he left office. That's insane.
That is insane even for you. DC has their own courts system. He would be arrested by the DC police. In the mean time he would be impeached.
__________________
Said Schiff: ďI think thereís plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.Ē
Reply With Quote
  #18816  
Old 07-31-2019, 03:22 PM
Puckhead's Avatar
Puckhead Puckhead is offline
Guy Boucher's One-Three-One
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,266
Default

Most certainly, the midterms demonstrated the movement of traditional, fair-minded R's, particularly women, away from the Republican party that Trump controls and represents. And these R suburban women have higher education levels than rural R women. Those five historically R districts in Orange County CA that elected D's demonstrated that, in spades.

I think a reasonable and perhaps even mildly "progressive" message can win back these Trump voters; again, in those states CRITICAL to electoral victory--MI, OH, PA etc etc. I would not risk a progressive "wave" turning out in those states to reverse the results of 2016 in those states.
Reply With Quote
  #18817  
Old 07-31-2019, 05:20 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,214
Default

Then a state or local law enforcement agency like the state of New York could arrest Trump at any time, right? The Secret Service would just let them walk right in and put the cuffs on, right?

Anybody care to point out the flaw(s) in Waiverís theory?

And thatís before you get to the fact that DC is a quasi-federal city because it is neutral and not a part of any state, per the Constitution. Thereís probably an entire other level of constitutional bear traps because of that, too.

Letís try another hypothetical, then, because as I was thinking of extreme cases to test the bounds of the farce that is the OLC opinion I got the chilling idea that I donít think itís beyond Trump, frankly, to do what MBS did to a Washington Post journalist, given his professed love of authoritarians and his expressed wish to be able to kill members of the media. Per the OLC opinion, if the FBI collected evidence the POTUS ordered someone to kill a reporter and bone saw the body (and letís say the conspiracy occurred by phone across state lines to make it a federal conspiracy crime), he could not be indicted until he left office. Thatís insane.
__________________
S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 05
Reply With Quote
  #18818  
Old 07-31-2019, 05:23 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead View Post
Most certainly, the midterms demonstrated the movement of traditional, fair-minded R's, particularly women, away from the Republican party that Trump controls and represents. And these R suburban women have higher education levels than rural R women. Those five historically R districts in Orange County CA that elected D's demonstrated that, in spades.

I think a reasonable and perhaps even mildly "progressive" message can win back these Trump voters; again, in those states CRITICAL to electoral victory--MI, OH, PA etc etc. I would not risk a progressive "wave" turning out in those states to reverse the results of 2016 in those states.
My two cents: Ohio is gone red. Michigan will tilt back blue. The election will come down to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Thatís assuming you believe the Midwestern map is the only path. Thereís other targets of opportunity for Democrats: Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona spring to mind.
__________________
S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 05
Reply With Quote
  #18819  
Old 07-31-2019, 08:26 PM
Puckhead's Avatar
Puckhead Puckhead is offline
Guy Boucher's One-Three-One
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
My two cents: Ohio is gone red. Michigan will tilt back blue. The election will come down to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Thatís assuming you believe the Midwestern map is the only path. Thereís other targets of opportunity for Democrats: Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona spring to mind.
Unfortunately, I think Florida stays red, UNLESS Hispanics come out like never before. AZ probably stays red. WI and NC could go either way. And if Biden is the nominee, he takes PA.
Reply With Quote
  #18820  
Old 07-31-2019, 08:52 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,214
Default

Quote:
Unfortunately, I think Florida stays red, UNLESS Hispanics come out like never before. AZ probably stays red. WI and NC could go either way. And if Biden is the nominee, he takes PA.
Florida is never a runaway for either party. It and North Carolina are reliably the most inelastic and closely fought states in the union. The only difference is that the Republicans cheat more in North Carolina. I would not expect them to be the tipping states for Democrats, but they're collectable if Democrats do indeed win.

I believe Wisconsin leans blue, especially now that a Democratic governor can reverse Walker's voter suppression gambit in that state. Also if Harris won the nomination, for instance, I believe African American turnout in Milwaukee goes back to Obama-era levels. Pennsylvania's closer, IMO, because Clinton hit her targets in Philly and Pittsburgh and still managed to lose. Pennsylvania probably tilts blue, but it's tighter than Wisconsin, IMO.

Arizona just elected an openly bisexual Democratic woman who was once a member of the Green Party (Sinema) to the US Senate. Point being: the winds of change are strong there. There's a belief the right kind of accomplished alpha professional woman candidate who appeals to suburban Republican women in Maricopa County like Sinema did can win Arizona. Suburban Phoenix women are, apparently, stridently anti-Trump.
__________________
S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 05
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.