Donald Trump

Colonel_Klinck · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:03

Trusty said:
No he wasn't. Horowitz was picked by Obama.

Why did both Barr and Durham say they disagreed with the IG report, if they are just doing it for a laugh. Why are you ignoring that? I don't understand

You are right he was indeed appointed in 2012. I was thinking of the Intelligence IG.

Of course it wouldn't be for a laugh, it would be to give political cover to Trump on the day the IG debunked his CT about Obama wiretapping and planting agents in his campaign. If Durham never presents this evidence no one is going to notice, it will just be forgotten about. They had nothing to lose doing it but Trump had lots to gain.

Everyone should be suspicious of Barr's motives as he's shown himself to be a very suspect AG this time around. Although him getting Bush to pardon those found guilty in Iran Contra the first time around, just days before Bush left office wasn't exactly apolitical and should have been a HUGE warning sign. Barr is meant to the attorney for the US people, not Trump's lawyer yet he involves himself constantly in Trump's politics. For as weak as Sessions was at least he had some ethics.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:05

Trusty said:
Yea, my point still stands. You can't criticise other people whilst partaking in that very thing.

But I'm not criticising you for speculating. I'm disputing your initial assertion for which there is no evidence.

If there were emails/texts/witnesses/phone records showing Obama ordered the surveillance of the Trump campaign for his own purposes, then i would give your accusation some merit.

Colonel_Klinck · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:07

plasmahal said:
Stop deflecting and answer the question.

What question? Are you saying the have to go all the way through the courts to the SC? If so you are wrong.

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:10

Colonel_Klinck said:
What question? Are you saying the have to go all the way through the courts to the SC? If so you are wrong.

You are being deliberately disingenuous by going round in circles with deflection, you know the question so answer it.

Colonel_Klinck · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:11

plasmahal said:
You are being deliberately disingenuous by going round in circles with deflection, you know the question so answer it.

No I really don't. Ask the question.

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:18

No doubt the anti-trumpeters will as usual shout down the source and not read it on purpose and i want to find the most simplest article etc for them to understand.

Try this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-privilege-explainer-idUSKCN1S80P1

HOW DOES CONGRESS COMBAT AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIM?
If McGahn, whose departure from the White House was announced by Trump in August 2018, refuses to testify, Congress could vote to hold him “in contempt of Congress” and then go to court and ask a judge to issue an order forcing him to comply. The judge would then decide the merits of an executive privilege claim.

doodah · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:19

Trusty said:
Well he's already said that he disagreed with Horowitz's report that no spying occurred, he superscedes Horowitz, i would say the baseline should be to go with what he's saying for the moment. Not take your position, saying he's irrelevant. It's like saying Biden made a statement saying "The Deepwater Horizon spill will not cause any problems" for Obama to come out and say "that's not correct Joe". Who would you listen to as your base position? Biden? Obama?

Well no he's disagreed without providing proof. I will ask again - what will your position be if he turns up nothing? You seemed much more eager to read previous IG reports as seen in the SC Trump thread but completely dismiss this one.

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:21

Colonel_Klinck said:
No I really don't. Ask the question

Your last chance to have any integrity!!!

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33305734/

In regards to the presidents executive privilege, as given by the constituted separation of powers of the USA,

Do you or do you not believe that this is the way the system is setup?

It was not setup that way specifically for Trump, it's the same for all presidents.

Just requires a simple yes or no, no deflection or whataboutisms.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:23

plasmahal said:
No doubt the anti-trumpeters will as usual shout down the source and not read it on purpose and i want to find the most simplest article etc for them to understand.

Try this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-privilege-explainer-idUSKCN1S80P1

HOW DOES CONGRESS COMBAT AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIM?
If McGahn, whose departure from the White House was announced by Trump in August 2018, refuses to testify, Congress could vote to hold him “in contempt of Congress” and then go to court and ask a judge to issue an order forcing him to comply. The judge would then decide the merits of an executive privilege claim.

Why do you keep parroting this? We know what executive privilege is.

The Democrats however did not want to wait for the whole massively long legal battles that would ensue (all the way to the supreme court as Trump would appeal, and appeal, and appeal).

If the Trump admin wanted to cooperate why did they not come to an agreement about what could be/could not be answered in terms of executive privilege? instead, the House was completely stonewalled and the White House ordered everyone not to cooperate or testify.

Remember, this is an impeachment about threatening national security, and about the president using his office to extort a foreign country to interfere in the next election by announcing an investigation into a company connected to his political rival.

They rightfully want him removed from office ASAP.

They probably also (wrongly) assumed that the senate would allow them to call more witnesses with all the clout of the senate behind them....unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case even though certain individuals have volunteered (parnas) and others have said they would answer a senate subpeona (Bolton).

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:31

Jono8 said:
Why do you keep parroting this? We know what executive privilege is.

you have consistently demonstrated that you don't.

Jono8 said:
The Democrats however did not want to wait

Well that's their decision to not follow the process as laid down.

Jono8 said:
Remember, this is an impeachment about threatening national security, and about the president using his office to extort a foreign country to interfere in the next election by announcing an investigation into a company connected to his political rival.

The articles of impeachment do not list any crimes cited by the US constitution as impeachable offences. This single failure alone will let Trump off the hook if there any real crimes committed but failed to be investigate. If the have the evidence of this, then present it to the court/senate. It is not for the senate to do the investigation.

Jono8 said:
They rightfully want him removed from office ASAP.

No, this is a completely partisan and political impeachment as they know they cannot democratically beat him in 2020.

They, like you and others here cannot accept the results of 'Orange Man Bad' winning the 2016 election.

Jono8 said:
They probably also (wrongly) assumed that the senate would allow them to call more witnesses with all the clout of the senate behind them....unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

They had the option to do that in the house but chose not to. This was done deliberately as they knew going vis the correct process would take too long and then they can deflect the blame onto the Senate and fool the american people.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:34

plasmahal said:
No, this is a completely partisan and political impeachment as they know they cannot democratically beat him in 2020.

They, like you and others here cannot accept the results of 'Orange Man Bad' winning the 2016 election.

Do you agree that the Democrats have been very vocal, publicly, about wanting to impeach the president since he came into office?

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:35

plasmahal said:
y

The articles of impeachment do not list any crimes cited by the US constitution as impeachable offences.

.

"high crimes or misdemeanors"

plasmahal said:
They had the option to do that in the house but chose not to. This was done deliberately as they knew going vis the correct process would take too long and then they can deflect the blame onto the Senate and fool the american people.

If you believe that, i genuinely feel sorry for you, because it displays a complete rejection of objective reality.

robfosters · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:37

Jono8 said:
Do you agree that the Democrats have been very vocal, publicly, about wanting to impeach the president since he came into office?

Because they’ve always known that’s the only way they can beat him.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:37

robfosters said:
Because they’ve always known that’s the only way they can beat him.

So you agree?

robfosters · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:43

Jono8 said:
So you agree?

I agree that the impeachment is more politically motivated than the actual belief he’s committed crimes which he should be removed from office for.

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:44

Jono8 said:
Do you agree that the Democrats have been very vocal, publicly, about wanting to impeach the president since he came into office?

There is video evidence and articles showing that they wanted to impeach him even before he was inaugurated. So yes.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) admitted during his Monday interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes when Democrats were determined to impeach President Trump and get him removed from office.

Hayes asked Green how he would respond to Republicans accusing Democrats of wanting to impeach Trump from the very first day he was sworn in as president.

"Well, the genesis of impeachment, to be very candid with you, was when the president was running for office and he had members of his own party to talk about his unfitness to hold office," Green replied. "The persons who were running against him, Mr. Romney spoke of his not being fit to hold office. Mr. Cruz made statements about it. So the president didn’t have the luxury of persons from his party having been on his side, as it were, throughout this entire ordeal."

From you favourite source...

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:46

Jono8 said:
"high crimes or misdemeanors"

Go on then, what are those crimes in the articles of impeachment?

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:47

plasmahal said:
There is video evidence and articles showing that they wanted to impeach him even before he was inaugurated. So yes.

From you favourite source...

Yes, quite.

Can you remind me what the results of the most recent US election were in 2018? Actually, dont worry i will do it for you:

The Democrats took the House 235 seats to 199 seats with a popular vote of 53.4% to 44.8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

So do you agree that the Democrats were very vocal about wanting to impeach the president , from the very get go, and then in 2018, the American people , by a strong margin, voted in a Democrat controlled House?

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:48

plasmahal said:
Go on then, what are those crimes in the articles of impeachment?

"OR"

robfosters · 23 Jan 2020 at 20:52

Jono8 said:
Yes, quite.

Can you remind me what the results of the most recent US election were in 2018? Actually, dont worry i will do it for you:

The Democrats took the House 235 seats to 199 seats with a popular vote of 53.4% to 44.8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

So do you agree that the Democrats were very vocal about wanting to impeach the president , from the very get go, and then in 2018, the American people , by a strong margin, voted in a Democrat controlled House?

That doesn’t wash with me. The democrats made it clear that they wanted to impeach him. This mobilised democrat voters and they got the result they wanted, which is fine with you.

Boris did the same thing in the GE with brexit. Giving the people a big juicy carrot which they fell for, but of course, you probably didn’t agree with that.