The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

I will make any arguements I deem need to be made.
 
Blind_Io said:
As for specific laws: How about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and 11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditure, independent expenditures, and disbursement by foreign nationals.

And before you say that information is not an expenditure, the courts and the law say that it has value and is therefore covered under campaign finance law. Bluman vs FEC upheld bans on foreign nationals from making gifts or donations (including services) to a campaign. The decision specifically banned contributions to candidates and political parties as well as “express-advocacy” expenditures — those ads that clearly support or oppose a specific electoral outcome. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision without comment. Russia's interference including the use of advertising - specifically covered under this case.
Click to expand...
Was that information provided to the Trump campaign or was it provided to a neutral third party that later released that information? Hint: Wikileaks.
Blind_Io said:
How about the Logan Act, which bars US citizens from interacting with foreign governments, or their representatives, to influence policy. A public appeal for foreign intervention would certainly qualify as "interaction" since it was followed by a response from Russia to aid the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
That is an extremely weak case, if I went on TV and said "Priuses all suck and people should really burn then down" and a bunch of Prisues go up in flames later, am I responsible for all those acts of vandalism?
Blind_Io said:
In the Watergate case, the crime was the physical break-in to access physical records - today that intrusion is electronic, to access electronic records; and it's still just as illegal.
Click to expand...
In the Watergate case, the break in was at express direction of the POTUS not a bunch of people deciding to do it on their own to help Nixon.

P.S. Putin wanting a specific candidate to win is hardly evidence of said candidate colluding with a foreign country. Maybe Putin is sexist and didn't want to work with a woman.
 
LeVeL said:
Trump rants about Russia releasing dirt on Hillary on national television.

Collusion! Cover up! Not my president! :roflmao: If you think that violates the Logan act, I got a bridge to sell you...
Click to expand...


That's it, sidestep the fact Trump admitted to seeking involvement from Russia by him calling for Putin to help find emails.
 
TC said:
Well, the question over what is in the best interest of the US people is always highly debated. It's very possible that was is in the best interest of the US people could also benefit other nations. If you were running for public office, completely pure and uncorrupted, wanting only what is best for your fellow citizens, and you found out a foreign nation was throwing their support behind you... what would you do? Abandon your policy proposals? Change your views? Drop out?
Click to expand...

In this scenario quite unrelated with 2016 reality, I would ask myself what their interests are, understand that being elected with foreign money is borderline with being on THEIR payroll and maybe refuse all help I could know of?

The way I see it, foreign nations all have a massive interest in who becomes the next US President, because what our country does has an unfortunate impact on the rest of the world. So every nation is going to have their preferred candidate. That simple fact alone should not influence anyone's vote, imo. Instead I think it would be important to dig deeper to understand exactly what it is these foreign nations are hoping for and whether that negatively impacts the interest of the US people.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been asking all along on this matter: what does Russia want? What is Russia's interest and is the US interest the same as Russia's?

I haven't had any direct answer yet, surely not any answer that was even loosely tied with reality and not just a "what if". The reason is "almost certainly not"; yet we do not know, and this shows how shady that interest is.

That Russia's interest is different from the US' is not strange, but then again, you should worry if Putin's preferred candidate gets helped and elected, as this is clearly giving more power to someone whose interests are different from the US'. Food for thought.

What did Russia want out of Trump? Less sanctions? Decreased tensions over Syria?
Click to expand...

This is why I talked about the "what ifs". Those are just the first things that came to your mind. In reality, Putin's moves in the last years have all been in the same direction: divide the US from its allies, single out the smaller allies and eat them up, opposing the US conflicting interest of meddling into everything around the world to build up Russia's own sphere of influence.

Trump's ideas and behaviours help Russia in this. What is the best interest of the US people in this? This is for you to evaluate.

It's very possible that Trump could be acting in what he believes to be the best interests of the US people, while also doing things that Russia would like to see happen.
Click to expand...

Actually... no... Trump doesn't care about the US people. He doesn't care about anyone except himself. If someone's interest coincide with his, he will help; otherwise, he won't move a finger. But you might be lucky. Trump likes adulation: flatter him and he will have part of what he wants, so he will help you. Don't expect him to help you out if this should cost him something, though: he won't, because he doesn't really care for you, or for anyone except himself.
 
SirEdward said:
If someone's interest coincide with his, he will help; otherwise, he won't move a finger.
Click to expand...
That is literally how politicians and elections work. Bernie Sanders is not interested in better roads and lifting all speed limits, but I am. He is interested in raising my taxes to pay for government programs that will have little direct benefit to me, which I clearly would not want.
 
GRtak said:
That is what he claimed.
Click to expand...
That was my bad. I should have been more clear. I never meant to imply it was all of Congress, it's for Nadler and members of the HJC.

My point still stands though. Keep in mind that these reports aren't traditionally made public, so no, the rest of Congress, or anyone else, has no right to complain about their level of access to it. As to the HJC, the fact they refuse to take the DOJ up on their offer to review the near-naked report is indicative of their own motives, not cover up on the part of Trump.
 
Last edited:
JimCorrigan said:
That was my bad. I should have been more clear. I never meant to imply it was all of Congress, it's for Nadler and members of the HJC.

My point still stands though. Keep in mind that these reports aren't traditionally made public, so no, the rest of Congress, or anyone else, has no right to complain about their level of access to it. As to the HJC, the fact they refuse to take the DOJ up on their offer to review the near-naked report is indicative of their own motives, not cover up on the part of Trump.
Click to expand...


So why can't the HIC see the parts that Trump has declassified for Barr to share with other investigators?

I see no other plausible reason than for trump to hinder the HJC and other investigations.
 
GRtak said:
So why can't the HIC see the parts that Trump has declassified for Barr to share with other investigators?

I see no other plausible reason than for trump to hinder the HJC and other investigations.
Click to expand...
Why does it need to in the first place?
 
prizrak said:
Why does it need to in the first place?
Click to expand...

How many times do I need to.say the same thing? It is part of their job (oversight). It is in the Constitution.
 
Pretty sure HIC isn’t in the Constitution. Again HJC has access to the report, does every single congressperson has to have access?
 
GRtak said:
So why can't the HIC see the parts that Trump has declassified for Barr to share with other investigators?

I see no other plausible reason than for trump to hinder the HJC and other investigations.
Click to expand...
You really, really need to start thinking beyond Dem talking points then.

Riddle me this: don't you think if there was something damning in the near naked report available to the head of the HJC (Nadler), he would jump at the chance to use it against Trump? Doesn't it bother you that he hasn't even bothered to read it yet, or wonder why that is?

GRtak said:
I am going to make a list of sources on trump blocking Mcgahn from testifying.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cGahn-testifying-Congress-Mueller-report.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...-house-justice-department-20190520-story.html

https://nypost.com/2019/05/20/trump-blocks-former-white-house-counsel-from-testifying-to-congress/

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/7251...ocking-don-mcgahn-from-testifying-in-congress
Click to expand...
A little context is needed.

He was not only subpoena'd to appear before Congress, they wanted him to turn over documents that pertain to the Mueller investigation. Again, if they want everything from the investigation, why not have Nadler read the damned thing first?

I'm not saying I agree with the White House here, but considering how petty Congress is being over this (how about you read what's available before you subpoena more people, fer crissakes), and how much the White House has already co-operated for the investigation, you can't blame them for wanting to reciprocate in kind.

GRtak said:
He is delaying the possible impeachment process or he would not have tried to hide it that way.
Click to expand...
Um, don't you think if he was hiding something, that would accelerate, not stall, the impeachment proceedings? Impeachment by the Dems can be started anytime, they don't "need" anything in order to do it.

By the way, you think it's a good idea? You actually think the Dems won't seal their fate for 2020 if they commit to this? Pelosi's not stupid, she knows. That's why she really doesn't want to go ahead with it.

GRtak said:
There is a process to get that info from the grand jury released to congress. I have said it several times. And if you would have read the subpoena, there were clear excemptions to protect him from breaking the law.
Click to expand...
And I have responded to you about this already: Barr already invited Congress to appeal to a judge for the grand jury information. It's not his job to do the appeal for them.

GRtak said:
Same can be said for the the president That lies like his life(maybe his political life does...) depends on it.
Click to expand...
Is this factual or just wishful thinking on your part? I don't deny he lies, but how do you know he's lying in regards to this ordeal? What do you know that Mueller doesn't?

GRtak said:
What are the dems trying to stop?
Click to expand...
Why hasn't Nadler subpoena'd Mueller to testify?

If you can answer that, you can answer your own question above.
 
Last edited:
This spin effort rates right up there with "clean coal".
 
Except some will. It has been a while now, maybe 2 years, but I have heard freedom fries mentioned since Bush Jr has been gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top