The Next President is...

[HeloDude]

42 minutes ago, drewpey said:

We discussed this a page or two ago. There is reason for and against, but only Coons knows the answer to that...ask him. Asking private citizens repeatedly isn't going to get you anywhere. We can only speculate, but in the end what he wants doesn't matter.

Would you like to provide your opinion as to why?  You (like the rest of us) aren't shying away from providing an opinion on nearly everything else.

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Would you like to provide your opinion as to why?  You (like the rest of us) aren't shying away from providing an opinion on nearly everything else.

I think the FBI releasing the report late-summer is only going to feed into this "deep state" red-hat conspiracy theory going on and will make roughly 33% of the country reject any and all facts presented to them on the matter as simply political sabotage. Even worse it could lead to a "FBI purge" or whatever the right keeps hinting at. My personal opinion is  Mueller should release the report when it's done, regardless of optics and political influence...which is most likely what he will do.

Many see this report release as the democratic life support in 2018. Like we need it to prevent being faded into irrelevance. I don't think it's true at all...the democratic base is motivated to show up at the polls to kick our government back into action. With every policy announcement R's have done a better job than any democratic leader of stirring up democratic voters and chipping away at their base.

[HeloDude]

^^Fair enough!  Then again, that's what we were told in Oct 2016.  We will definitely find out!

[drewpey]

I think many democrats were not motivated to get out and vote because they were lukewarm about Hillary and thought the election was decided.

I think we will see record voting % in 2018 compared to recent years. The 2017 civics course was a wake-up call to many on the importance of elections and a government that exercises it's checks and balances to make a country function.

It will be interesting if Parkland energises young voters, and to see how conservative the boomer generation stays if/when conservatives touch the social security/Medicare third rail.

[17D_guy]

Was an interesting interview w/ Gov's Kasich (OH) and Hickenlooper (CO) about the coming election.  I'm not sure we're going to see the fall of our party system, but the call out of the D's lack of a platform outside "not-Trump" is a problem.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-witnessing-end-party-system-republican-governor/story?id=53330459

 

 

[matmacwc]

On 2/20/2018 at 8:50 PM, matmacwc said:

Do said foreigners have constitutional protections, and if they do, why?

Allow me to quote myself.  They aren’t entitled to all protections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/27/supreme-court-rules-that-detained-immigrants-dont-get-automatic-bond-hearings.html

 

[tk1313]

And the special counsel after nearly 2 years has their first sentence, and gets to deal 30 days of justice for a perjury trap... Massive face palm... Russia has got to be pretty stoked about this sillyness

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-sentencing/index.html

[craino21]

May 17, 2017 was nearly 2 years ago? Also, 4 people pled guilty and took a plea deal and avoided sentencing. Who knows what will come of this but I don't see reason for a facepalm yet.

[tk1313]

Avoided sentencing for what? I guess we'll find out after midterms...

Definitely OK with going after Manafort (or anybody else) for tax fraud. But all the "lying to the FBI" charges seem like punishment for not taking notes from Hillary's "I don't recall" sessions. But tell me you actually believe Trump cooked up some nefarious plot with the Russians to fvck Hillary out of the win she so deserved and there isn't a shred of partisan politics effecting any of it and I'll STFU. I mean, for fvcks sake, Mueller charged Russians for setting up a bot farm to spread misinformation... Weak.

Edited April 4, 2018 by tk1313

[17D_guy]

19 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I mean, for fvcks sake, Mueller charged Russians for setting up a bot farm to spread misinformation... Weak.

Are you saying that's weak as in pointless, or weak as in it didn't happen and some "deep state" is rising up against the anointed Prez?

Just so we're clear, you're fine with some crimes getting prosecuted, but not others.  So you're cool with the original Slick Willy issues while he was in office?  Since you don't think lying to the FBI/investigators should be punishable.

[tk1313]

36 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Are you saying that's weak as in pointless, or weak as in it didn't happen and some "deep state" is rising up against the anointed Prez?

Just so we're clear, you're fine with some crimes getting prosecuted, but not others.  So you're cool with the original Slick Willy issues while he was in office?  Since you don't think lying to the FBI/investigators should be punishable.

Weak as in pointless. I don't think a special counsel is needed to go after internet trolls. Personally, I think if Bill Clinton was President today and the Lewinsky story broke, people wouldn't really care nearly as much as they did back then. And I never said lying to the FBI shouldn't be punished, just implied that the actual lies aren't as groundbreaking as I would expect from a special counsel investigation. In your honest opinion, is the special counsel making great strides towards punishing those involved in "Russian meddling" in our election? And do you believe that the Trump campaign actively aided the Russians in said meddling?

Edited April 4, 2018 by tk1313

[Vertigo]

20 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Weak as in pointless. I don't think a special counsel is needed to go after internet trolls. Personally, I think if Bill Clinton was President today and the Lewinsky story broke, people wouldn't really care nearly as much as they did back then. And I never said lying to the FBI shouldn't be punished, just implied that the actual lies aren't as groundbreaking as I would expect from a special counsel investigation. In your honest opinion, is the special counsel making great strides towards punishing those involved in "Russian meddling" in our election? And do you believe that the Trump campaign actively aided the Russians in said meddling?

Not needed, but if crimes are uncovered while investigating something else, should he have just looked the other way? Isn't it his DUTY, as a law enforcement officer, to lay charges for all crimes that have been found during an investigation... even if that specific crime wasn't the target of the investigation?

If you have 10 kilos of coke in the backseat of your car, and you get pulled over for speeding, should the officer ignore the coke and just write a ticket for speeding?

If you're being investigated for possible murder and they find evidence you launder money for the mob, should they ignore that because they were only looking at you for murder?

Your argument makes no sense.

[tk1313]

41 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Not needed, but if crimes are uncovered while investigating something else, should he have just looked the other way? Isn't it his DUTY, as a law enforcement officer, to lay charges for all crimes that have been found during an investigation... even if that specific crime wasn't the target of the investigation?

If you have 10 kilos of coke in the backseat of your car, and you get pulled over for speeding, should the officer ignore the coke and just write a ticket for speeding?

If you're being investigated for possible murder and they find evidence you launder money for the mob, should they ignore that because they were only looking at you for murder?

Your argument makes no sense.

I'm not a lawyer or in any job that deals with law enforcement... But let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

 

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I'm not a lawyer or in any job that deals with law enforcement... But let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

 

 

AMEN!

[Lord Ratner]

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

Yes. This is one of the many, many reasons you never talk to the police if they have questions for you.

[mcbush]

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

Not a lawyer either, but what you're getting at are the limits of exemptions to the exclusionary rule. Probably depends on whether or not the cop was acting in good faith. Ref: US vs. Leon (1984)

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

Yes. Ref: common sense. You lied to the cops, which is against the law. 

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Special Counsel investigations take time. This one has been going on for less than a year. For comparison's sake, here's a chart from a December 2017 538 article:

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

Where is this presumption of guilt coming from, in your eyes?

Also, I don't see how anyone can realistically argue there's a lack of probable cause at this point. There may not be fire , but damn if there isn't a hell of a lot of smoke.

 

[brickhistory]

Clinton was investigated and impeached because of the opposition political party.  Not for getting a BJ, but for lying under oath.  Wasn't smart for the GOP to do then and it blew up in their faces (errr. sts).

Trump is being investigated with his own party controlling the levers of power.  Telling how much the establishment on both sides don't want his outsiderness.  He's rocking their boat however chaotically he is doing it.

So he's being investigated after firing an executive branch official who serves, like all do, at the pleasure of the President.

An open-ended investigation that has carte blanche to go anywhere, covering any activity, at any time in Trump and his associates lives.

Not sure I could withstand such an open-ended investigation without them finding something or, if not, for 'obstruction of justice' and/or 'lying to federal investigators' when even an "I don't remember" can be indicted as such.  Not sure many of us could.

Now national level politics is a dirty business because of the many dollars that can accrue from the activity, but our intel agencies spying on, and revealing to the media, the private conversations of Americans, the leaking of classified information by a SecState/candidate, the head of the FBI, his deputy, the lead CI investigator, etc, etc doesn't bother you, it should.

Or knowingly lying multiple times by lying to a FISA court (itself an aberration of what is supposed to be our open judicial system).

Or the weaponizing of the IRS against political opponents which happened.  IRS admitted it and paid millions in fines.  That should bother you.

As just a start.  And not because Obama and Co. did it.  But because it was done and there were no consequences.  As least as of to date.  What do you think the GOP is likely to do with their power?

And the next guys?

Each time, the boundary will be pushed just a little further because the likelihood of negative repercussions to those misusing the powers of the federal government grows smaller each time.

Yes, I do want you to get off my lawn, but more importantly, I want you to get off of my Constitution.

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Not sure I could withstand such an open-ended investigation without them finding something or, if not, for 'obstruction of justice' and/or 'lying to federal investigators' when even an "I don't remember" can be indicted as such. 

Obstruction of justice is a felony. It’s a big deal. Obstruction and lying was what was going to get Nixon impeached before he resigned weeks before the hearing.

And trust me, when you’re the subject of the investigation, no one gives two shits “what you can stand.” The Feds will go after you with everything they have, and their resources are almost limitless. Manafort and Flynn are already whining about running out of money due to legal costs.

And if you don’t think Mueller won’t find anything, please. This is the guy who put John Gotti away as an assistant AG, investigated and prosecuted Enron executives, was the Director if the FBI, and a Marine Grunt with a Ranger tab in Vietnam. He knows what he’s doing and he recruited some of the best talent in the legal world. Trump can’t even hire competent counsel, and when he does, they quit.

[Azimuth]

11 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I'm not a lawyer or in any job that deals with law enforcement... But let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

 

I highly doubt a cop, under oath in court, is going to say “yeah I pulled him over just cause.” If you believe that, then you’ve never been in court.

[ThreeHoler]

I had a cop no-show for a speeding ticket. He was fired for falsifying speeding tickets. But I had no coke in the car.

[brickhistory]

19 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Obstruction of justice is a felony. It’s a big deal. Obstruction and lying was what was going to get Nixon impeached before he resigned weeks before the hearing.

And trust me, when you’re the subject of the investigation, no one gives two shits “what you can stand.” The Feds will go after you with everything they have, and their resources are almost limitless. Manafort and Flynn are already whining about running out of money due to legal costs.

And if you don’t think Mueller won’t find anything, please. This is the guy who put John Gotti away as an assistant AG, investigated and prosecuted Enron executives, was the Director if the FBI, and a Marine Grunt with a Ranger tab in Vietnam. He knows what he’s doing and he recruited some of the best talent in the legal world. Trump can’t even hire competent counsel, and when he does, they quit.

Although I think you intended to refute my post - nowhere did I imply that Mueller won't "find anything,"- you actually make my point.

I am unfamiliar with the American judicial system that investigates someone until they find something.

 

I don't impugn Mueller's overall integrity, but he's bud's with Comey, was the Director of the FBI who very well could be involved with all these shenanagins, and his crack team of associates do seem to run in a particular ideological bent.  As one example, FBI CI guy Struck(sp?).  True, he did fire him after the notorious anti-Trump texts were made public, but was it because they became public that he fired him?  All of these indicators would seem to add up to not being an impartial guy for this investigation.  Appearances matter.

 

Ask Steven Hatfill about Mueller's  infallibility. 

[drewpey]

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Although I think you intended to refute my post - nowhere did I imply that Mueller won't "find anything,"- you actually make my point.

I am unfamiliar with the American judicial system that investigates someone until they find something.

 

I don't impugn Mueller's overall integrity, but he's bud's with Comey, was the Director of the FBI who very well could be involved with all these shenanagins, and his crack team of associates do seem to run in a particular ideological bent.  As one example, FBI CI guy Struck(sp?).  True, he did fire him after the notorious anti-Trump texts were made public, but was it because they became public that he fired him?  All of these indicators would seem to add up to not being an impartial guy for this investigation.  Appearances matter.

 

Ask Steven Hatfill about Mueller's  infallibility. 

Strzok was reassigned when the texts surfaced to Mueller, which was in August 2017.  The texts didn't become public knowledge until December 2017.  Sure appearances do matter, but so do facts.

I do find it comical that after years of republican-led investigations into Hillary suddenly republicans feel they can only be investigated by someone who is "impartial" (which seems to be a constantly moving target itself).  I'd love to read Gowdy's texts over the last few years to verify his "impartiality" against republican standards.

These people are professional career lawmen with extensive experience in law enforcement, and not some part-time hack with a vendetta.  It's their entire job to put aside their opinions and facilitate justice.

Also I know the talking point of the investigation having no limits and no end is enticing, but in reality Rosenstein has oversight of Mueller, and has to approve lines of investigation to ensure they aren't just running down rabbit holes and it's all related to the core issue of Russian interference.

[Azimuth]

9 hours ago, brickhistory said:

I am unfamiliar with the American judicial system that investigates someone until they find something.

It’s called the military “justice” system led by the retards known as OSI and dipshit Commanders who have the investigative skills of Barney Fife.

Appearances do matter. You have a Republican (Comey) who was allegedly fired by a Republican (Trump) for not backing off investigating a Republican (Flynn) via the Russian investigation. Then, a Republican (Rosenstein) appointed a Republican (Mueller) to form a special counsel to investigate the firing and Russian involvement with the 2016 Presidential election. And since he’s charged Republican’s (Flynn, Manafort, and Gates) with crimes.

Dont really know where ideologies are bent? As stated above Rosenstein has full authority and oversight over Mueller. I guess we’ll see if Trump gets annoyed enough to have Sessions (who’s recused, right?) either fire Mueller himself, which will surely bring an obstruction charge directly to Trump, or force Sessions to force Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

[Lord Ratner]

These people are professional career lawmen with extensive experience in law enforcement, and not some part-time hack with a vendetta.  It's their entire job to put aside their opinions and facilitate justice.

That was all fine and dandy until Strzok and Page were outed (by a leak, no less) as trying to arrange a secret meeting with a FISA judge, and the FBI felt it was appropriate to hide this fact from Congress through redaction.

Oh, and another professional, Andy McCabe, did such a good job that even the FBI felt he should be fired and lose his pension.

And Comey, that paragon of blind justice, looks worse by the day with his scheming and leaking and inconsistency.

They're making it pretty damn hard to trust the "professional career lawmen."

[17D_guy]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That was all fine and dandy until Strzok and Page were outed (by a leak, no less) as trying to arrange a secret meeting with a FISA judge, and the FBI felt it was appropriate to hide this fact from Congress through redaction.

Oh, and another professional, Andy McCabe, did such a good job that even the FBI felt he should be fired and lose his pension.

And Comey, that paragon of blind justice, looks worse by the day with his scheming and leaking and inconsistency.

They're making it pretty damn hard to trust the "professional career lawmen."

Copy, no issues with Mueller or Rosenstein though.

Source on the secret meeting w/ a FISA judge?