Presidential Prediction...Our own Crystal Ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Will do.
If Biden is guilty (and it seems he may be)...he should resign from running.
If Trump is guilty (and it seems he may be)...he should resign from the Presidency.

All solved.

---

Legally I don't think either one is "guilty".

It's all in the gray area of politics based on our current laws. There's no law that says Biden's son can't ride his Dad's coattails to get access and make money. It is unethical, but it's not illegal.

Likewise Trump asking a foreign power to investigate someone isn't illegal. As POTUS he has broad power in foreign policy and he's the chief LEO of the land, so if he thinks someone should be investigated, and there's certainly some probable cause at least here, then it's at least a gray area.

In truth, as Alan Dershowitz pointed out repeatedly in the Russia investigation, it's not illegal necessarily to "collude" with a foreign power. You have to show a lot more than just some kind of cooperation, b/c if that's the standard the DNC's creation of the dossier with Russian sources could be considered "collusion".

I don't think either is guilty. I do think Trump chose to investigate Biden and wouldn't have chosen to investigate an ally, but that's just a given in politics at all levels. I do think Biden's son is using his dad's power to cash in by selling his name for supposed access, and that's corrupt IMO but it's probably not technically illegal.

The "crime" part of this is really hard to prove. Bill Clinton takes $500K in speaking fees from a company in Russia backed by the same group that gets Hillary to sign off on the purchase of Uranium One. Those are facts, cold and hard, and still no prosecution. why? B/c you have to prove a causal relationship.

So you have to prove Trump only mentioned Biden b/c he's a rival, not b/c he may in fact be someone who needs to be investigated for corruption in the Ukraine, when the call was about Ukranian corruption and trying to weed it out.

that's what I mean by the same standards. By Washington's current standard, which I agree is utterly appalling, Trump isn't guilty of anything, and Biden, while unseemly, probably isn't either.

It's the Clinton defense. They never say "it isn't wrong what I did". They have always said "it's not illegal". And that's true in that it would be so difficult to build a case without some kind of smoking gun.


but the only person being investigated here is Trump. the Clinton machine has gotten numerous passes, including the email scandal which IMO was actually a crime and was easily provable, and so has Biden, and they will continue to do so.

that's the double standard.

And I'm fine with throwing them all in jail, absolutely. I'm sick of the corruption of Washington and the elites. But the only one who will be punished here is Trump, and it's b/c he's a conservative and the media and the bureaucrats in Washington are overwhelmingly liberal. They'd never do this to one of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

And I'm fine with throwing them all in jail, absolutely. I'm sick of the corruption of Washington and the elites. But the only one who will be punished here is Trump, and it's b/c he's a conservative and the media and the bureaucrats in Washington are overwhelmingly liberal. They'd never do this to one of their own.

---

Actually, I have mixed feelings on whether this will hurt Biden or not in the primaries. (and I am saying this from a Dem primary voter point of view) On one hand, it makes it seem like Trump doesn't want to face Biden as he is consistently in his crosshairs.
On the other, its a possible achilles that might keep independents from voting for him.
So, I will likely lean toward this hurting Biden in the General and therefore hurting him now in the primary. But I suppose we will see. I am more of a long term thinker with this stuff.
A lot of Dem voters are not. I have a feeling he gets a bump in the Dem polls after this (even though I think he should not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Legally I don't think either one is "guilty".

So you have to prove Trump only mentioned Biden b/c he's a rival, not b/c he may in fact be someone who needs to be investigated for corruption in the Ukraine, when the call was about Ukranian corruption and trying to weed it out.

---

Or both. Because both includes him being a rival...which is illegal. In other words, the President may have asked them to investigate because he thinks what Biden did was wrong. And he's just doing America a service because that kind of person should be caught. That would be good for the government.
But he might have ALSO done it because he's a political rival. And that is illegal. And that would be good for Trump.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both. And one of "both" is illegal.

The biggest problem for Trump is that he and Rudy just won't shut up. They tweet. They do interviews. They just talk all the time.
And even though I highly doubt they will find a transcript or an email that explicitly says, "Hey Ukraine...investigate my rival Biden because I want him out of the race. Then I will give you your aid." doesn't mean its still not both. And again, one of both is illegal.
And Trump's phone call says he connected the Ukranian leader with Rudy (so did the whistleblower and so has Rudy). So Rudy's actions were at the request of Trump (and now he is saying also the State Dept).

And Rudy Rudy Rudy just keeps talking. And he is likely going to get thrown under the bus and be Trump's fall guy for this.

But this quote by him is the one I think is most damning:

“I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”

According to Rudy, it was done for both.

Done for both actually may not be illegal.

First, I want to see the law that makes it illegal even if it's done just to hurt a rival.

Second, just like the Clinton cash machine, you have to PROVE it was done for nefarious purpose, and that's why it's so hard to win these cases. the UAE just felt moved about the Clinton Foundation's cause in Haiti and send them $10 million, it wasn't b/c that bought them access and influence with the Clintons. Now prove otherwise.

You need a complete smoking gun in these cases, and so far there isn't one.

Your quote from Rudy is absolutely identical to a public letter sent by multiple Democratic Senators to Ukraine urging them to continue investigations that may have helped damage Trump, and they went further and even at least implied a quid pro quo. Are they going to be censured and removed from the Senate?

but let's start at the beginning. Where is it illegal for either Trump or those Democratic Senators to urge a foreign power to investigate or not investigate someone even if it is done for political benefit?

I'm being sincere. I agree it may be "wrong", but I want to know what specific laws are being applied b/c the devil will be in the detail of their language.

And FWIW, I would be fine if this whole thing made Trump throw up his hands and not run and Pence or whoever stepped in, b/c versus Biden, Warren or Bernie I think we get another GOP President, and if that happens the judiciary in another 4 years will have a lot more judges who believe in following the laws versus making them up as they go along, including possibly 1 or even 2 more seats on SCOTUS.

So I'm good with that, I have no loyalty to Trump, but I end up defending him on here b/c he's being held to a vastly different standard of behavior.

when those Senators sent a PUBLIC letter doing exactly what you just cited from Gulliani, where was the outrage and calls for legal charges?

It seems to only be "illegal" when Trump does something. When anyone else does it, and has done it, it's just politics.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, wonder if Obama was nominated if he would accept. Only Taft has ever served as President and on the court.

This link describes why the Ukraine incident will sink Biden’s chances in 2020

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...-ukraine-story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

but let's start at the beginning. Where is it illegal for either Trump or those Democratic Senators to urge a foreign power to investigate or not investigate someone even if it is done for political benefit?

I'm being sincere. I agree it may be "wrong", but I want to know what specific laws are being applied b/c the devil will be in the detail of their language.

---

Now who's moving the goalpost? :)

Its a valid question.

I can tell you that the Fox News Legal Analyst said it was illegal. So that is something.

But, to be quite honest..."illegal" isn't the right term at all. The simple fact before congress is "is it impeachable"? And it doesn't need to be illegal to be impeachable.

Alexander Hamilton wrote about impeachment in Federalist No. 65, “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

A Congressional Research Service report on impeachment and removal prepared in October 2015 says, “Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.”

No matter what, what is impeachable is going to be up to the eye of the beholder (voter). According to Rudy, he pushed Ukraine for a Biden investigation because it was "very very good for his client". That sure fits the Congressional definition above Imo. But I am not a voting member of Congress that has to worry about losing my seat in 2020. Many Republicans are. And even if they agree with the above they are not likely to get to 20 Republican votes in the Senate.

But, this was never about actually removing him from office. His conduct may be impeachable but we all know this was a calculated political move. Many on this board have said they think it was a political mistake for the Dems. I am not sure about that.
It seems like its picking up steam with the public. The earliest polls released shows it has.
And some respected Republicans (like Sasse) seem to be troubled by it.
It has certainly gotten under Trump's skin.
There is a lot of infighting amongst Republican brass, Fox News, etc.
And Rudy is just a disaster on television and twitter.
Time will tell what the political consequences will be either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

This link describes why the Ukraine incident will sink Biden’s chances in 2020

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...-ukraine-story

---

Will Dems care? Will another candidate use it in the primary to go after him? I am not sure they will. And I am not sure it will play well if they do.

It won't matter in the general. Trump's actions have sort of just negated any advantage it would have given them. I am serious about that too. If I were Trump, I would have held on to this until 2 weeks before the General Election. But Rudy has been tweeting about it for 6 months now. This will seem like Ancient history by next November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

And FWIW, I would be fine if this whole thing made Trump throw up his hands and not run and Pence or whoever stepped in, b/c versus Biden, Warren or Bernie I think we get another GOP President, and if that happens the judiciary in another 4 years will have a lot more judges who believe in following the laws versus making them up as they go along, including possibly 1 or even 2 more seats on SCOTUS.

So I'm good with that, I have no loyalty to Trump, but I end up defending him on here b/c he's being held to a vastly different standard of behavior.

when those Senators sent a PUBLIC letter doing exactly what you just cited from Gulliani, where was the outrage and calls for legal charges?

It seems to only be "illegal" when Trump does something. When anyone else does it, and has done it, it's just politics.

---

Can't disagree. Fair is fair. And neither side is usually fair.

Hard to say, but it kinda puts Biden recollection at odds with what is in the notes from the prosecutor’s resignation letter. What I find laughable about all of this is Trump is being assailed for calling it to light.
We live in strange times....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Will Dems care? Will another candidate use it in the primary to go after him? I am not sure they will. And I am not sure it will play well if they do.

It won't matter in the general. Trump's actions have sort of just negated any advantage it would have given them. I am serious about that too. If I were Trump, I would have held on to this until 2 weeks before the General Election. But Rudy has been tweeting about it for 6 months now. This will seem like Ancient history by next November.

---

Biden is a liar, or at least a massive stretcher of the truth. Anybody believe his "Corn Pop" story? 1962 and a name like Corn Pop? Come on. As believable as Kamela Harris listening to Tupac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Now who's moving the goalpost? :)

Its a valid question.

I can tell you that the Fox News Legal Analyst said it was illegal. So that is something.

But, to be quite honest..."illegal" isn't the right term at all. The simple fact before congress is "is it impeachable"? And it doesn't need to be illegal to be impeachable.

---

Not trying to move the posts, just when you said "guilty" I'm not sure what they are guilty of specifically. Guilty of being politicians who use the means of government for their own benefit? Sure, absolutely.

But EVERY politician is guilty of that, so it's a meaningless guilt.

Guilty as in guilty of a crime? I doubt it in either case.

if "not illegal" is good enough for impeachment, this country will be utterly gridlocked. Think of all the scandals like Teapot Dome that never got impeached.

The ONLY reason we're going through this is b/c people wanted to impeach Trump and remove him from office before he even took the oath.

that's it. People are out of their minds in fear and hate of him. I get hating him on a personal level, but the only reason for this running scandal full court press is b/c they hate he's President.

It's to overturn the election for which they hate the outcome. That's it. Any other president this might be a scandal, but even with Iran/Contra we never heard "impeach" from anyone serious in Washington.

This sets an awful precedent. It will only get worse, and both parties are to blame. the GOP for impeaching Clinton when it didn't rise to it, and the Dems now returning the favor.

And the gap opens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

P.s. My offer (which is weightless) still stands. Have Trump step down and I will personally put a different Republican in office for the next 4 years as long as they are reasonable and respectful.
I can provide a list (ha):
Sasse
Romney
Kasich (who would be my personal choice)

---

Agree 100%. Kasich was my pick in 2016.


Sorry for my part in hijacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Agree 100%. Kasich was my pick in 2016.


Sorry for my part in hijacking.

---

No worries. Sometimes threads turn into what they need to be.
I posted this thread right in the middle (well beginning) of impeachment breaking news. Not a surprise it would turn into this at all. And it’s a great discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

This sets an awful precedent. It will only get worse, and both parties are to blame. the GOP for impeaching Clinton when it didn't rise to it, and the Dems now returning the favor.

And the gap opens.

---

I agree with that as well. And it always gets worse, not better.

Garland happened (and of course other things before him) and then Kavanaugh.
Clinton and then Trump.
Obama’s Exec orders and then Trumps.

On and on it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

P.s. My offer (which is weightless) still stands. Have Trump step down and I will personally put a different Republican in office for the next 4 years as long as they are reasonable and respectful.
I can provide a list (ha):
Sasse
Romney
Kasich (who would be my personal choice)

---

Wow, you must believe Republicans are not very bright. So YOU would be okay with 3 liberal Democrats that wear Republican masks (known as RINOs) being President.

Therefore, I would OKAY with Nunes, Jim Jordan or a Reagan clone being the Democratic President.

Darryl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darryl

Wow, you must believe Republicans are not very bright. So YOU would be okay with 3 liberal Democrats that wear Republican masks (known as RINOs) being President.

Therefore, I would OKAY with Nunes, Jim Jordan or a Reagan clone being the Democratic President.

Darryl

---

Wait, what???

Ben Sasse has a 99% rating from the American Conservative Union. That is the highest in all of the United States Senate. Calling him a "liberal Democrat" is like me calling Bernie Sanders a Right Wing Nut.

Lindsey Graham has a 81% rating just as a comparison.

Just because someone doesn't drink the Trump Koolaid doesn't make them a "liberal Democrat". Or just because someone is reasonable and works well with others.

I'm not a big fan of a lot of Sasse's policy positions. But he is a first class dude and without a doubt a conservative.

Obviously, Kasich and Romney are less conservative on some social issues but they are still very much Republicans and fiscal conservatives.

Btw, none of that was even my point. Of course "I" would choose more moderate Republicans. Duh. My point was that I would give up the next 4 years and Republicans could choose someone else as President as long as Trump didn't run again.
Trump is FAR less conservative than Ben Sasse. And its not even close. But Ben Sasse would bring a little dignity back to the office (which is the reason I was kidding about the offer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I agree with that as well. And it always gets worse, not better.

Garland happened (and of course other things before him) and then Kavanaugh.
Clinton and then Trump.
Obama’s Exec orders and then Trumps.

On and on it goes.

---

The downhill slide on SCOTUS began with Judge Bork. We can thank Ted Kennedy for most of that shift in approach, and it's only gotten worse and worse.

One huge reason this kinda of stuff coming up in this thread, is the SCOTUS vacancy(s) that will occur in the next 4 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

The downhill slide on SCOTUS began with Judge Bork. We can thank Ted Kennedy for most of that shift in approach, and it's only gotten worse and worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

One huge reason this kinda of stuff coming up in this thread, is the SCOTUS vacancy(s) that will occur in the next 4 years.

---

And it's a huge reason liberals cant' get over the 2016 election. One appointments was riding on it, they thought election was in the bag against this blowhard Trump, and now he's actually had two picks.

They're terrified he wins reelection and replaces RBG and maybe even one more, as well as continuing to fill the judiciary appointments elsewhere.

Honestly I get why people dont' like Trump, even hate him on a personal level, but the hysteria surrounding him being some kind of deep threat to the whole future of the nation is just propaganda infused hysteria. We've had far bigger threats to the nation than Trump and we survived those, and this too shall pass.

Likewise, just like last time, I'm willing to hold my nose b/c I want a judiciary that actually believes in following the law and not making it up as they go along. When you read RBG's and Sotomayer's comments on how the Constitution is outdated in some areas it's absolutely terrifying, at least to me.

I want 9 people on that bench that revere the document and the brilliance of our Founders as much as I do. 9 people who know they couldn't hope to be as wise and insightful as the brilliant men who crafted that document and launched the Great Experiment. The notion that any of us today can stand in their shadow is dangerous and absurd.

Their job is to preserve the intent of that document. I think Trump will continue to do a good job in that area and nominate people who feel that way, so I'll live with the asinine tweeting.

At this point of our political landscape, the Senate matters a lot more than the Presidency frankly as far as SCOTUS is concerned.

And control of the Senate is going to be a war and unbelievably close. Every election is the "most important of our lifetime". Well, no matter which side of the aisle you are on...this one actually will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Honestly I get why people dont' like Trump, even hate him on a personal level, but the hysteria surrounding him being some kind of deep threat to the whole future of the nation is just propaganda infused hysteria. We've had far bigger threats to the nation than Trump and we survived those, and this too shall pass.

---

That's just mostly media frenzy imo. I think he's an awful example but yes, like you, I believe this shall all pass. We will survive. And frankly, I am around liberals every single day of my life and I don't know many at all who feel that way. My conversations with people are far less full of hysteria and far more full of eye rolling.
More than anything, I just think people are as motivated as they have ever been to vote and get out the vote. We will without a doubt see record numbers of voters in 2020.

Changing my vote again lol since Mark Zuckerberg has ramped up his feud with Elizabeth Warren by exempting “political figures” from facebook’s truth in advertising rules. Make it O’Rourke over Sasse.

BTW, Trump certainly didn’t seem to help himself any today by asking China to investigate Biden. Is he that stubborn or is the hubris that powerful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Changing my vote again lol since Mark Zuckerberg has ramped up his feud with Elizabeth Warren by exempting “political figures” from facebook’s truth in advertising rules. Make it O’Rourke over Sasse.

BTW, Trump certainly didn’t seem to help himself any today by asking China to investigate Biden. Is he that stubborn or is the hubris that powerful?

---

Both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That's just mostly media frenzy imo. I think he's an awful example but yes, like you, I believe this shall all pass. We will survive. And frankly, I am around liberals every single day of my life and I don't know many at all who feel that way. My conversations with people are far less full of hysteria and far more full of eye rolling.
More than anything, I just think people are as motivated as they have ever been to vote and get out the vote. We will without a doubt see record numbers of voters in 2020.

---

I go by what he says. Due process doesn’t mean much to him based on what he says.

Accepting help from foreign governments. Supporting the Russians. Loving autocrats. Joking about staying in power beyond two terms. Jerry Falwell jr publicly saying trump deserves 2 more years due to Mueller.

Attacking the press. Hell he doesn’t even know Jerry Tipton. I fear hm and what he represents.

I do think a lot of liberals and many politicians are so used to the bull, they don’t understand orangello is serious.

lol.


Asking China to investigate Biden is the smartest thing he's done all week. Brilliant.

Yeah, can't have a President accepting help from foreign governments. You know, like the Obama Administration using a British spy to help investigate the Trump Administration based on the word of a foreign diplomat and paid Russian statements, or Democratic Senators asking the UKraine to help with the Mueller investigation. That would be serious. If you're Trump only of course.

When Obama investigates Trump, enlisting Russians, Ukranians, a British Prof and a foreign Ambassador, with no actual evidence whatsoever, it's all for the good of national security b/c Trump could be tied to foreign powers. When Trump wants to work wiht a foreign allied nation to investigate Biden, prior to him even announcing he's a candidate, and when he has clear ties to foreign powers with potentially millions of actual dollars changing hands, that's a violation of some as yet unspecified law and a threat to national security.

And here I was under the impression from my reading of the Constitution that the POTUS was the chief law enforcement officer of the land and was actually charged with investigating people who are possibly corrupt. Apparently when you're Obama that's what you're doing, but when it's Trump it's interfering with an election.

Oh yeah. Makes perfect sense.

And yes, of course it would help Trump politically, and sure he's going to investigate opponents before allies.

When the Democratic House knew about Fast And Furious and the White House turned over no documents, I dont recall much of an attack on AG HOlder, who said publicly he was the "President's wingman". Thousands of guns went to the cartels under the ATF's nose and with their blessing, and no oversight role was performed. None.

It's all politics, so let's all grow up here. If this was all a Dem PResident the Dems would be defending him/her as not breaking any law and doing his job and the GOP would be raising hell.

It's called politics, and Trump is playing it but not any more viciously or illegally than it's been played by anyone else. It's not pretty or even right, but it's not out of the norm.

It blows me away that not everyone is calling for his resignation after the China remark and is a sad commentary on where our nation is when partisanship takes precedence over the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

It blows me away that not everyone is calling for his resignation after the China remark and is a sad commentary on where our nation is when partisanship takes precedence over the Constitution.

---

It's OK. It blows me away that anyone thinks that kind of remark is somehow a problem or criminal in some way.

It really blows me away how people exist with such chasm-spanning levels of double standards, giving those they agree with politically a pass and wanting those they disagree with hauled off in irons.

The move is politically brilliant b/c the more he does it the more it becomes normalized. Agree with it or not its smart politics on his part. The Clintons were experts at embracing their embarrassments with the attitude that it's all perfectly acceptable behavior and doubling down on it. Same thing here.

It will never be normalized though. They don’t even need the whistleblower anymore to impeach; he stood on the White House lawn and asked China to investigate a political rival and therefore interfere in our elections to his personal gain. No longer can it be argued that his Ukraine dealings were some sort of normal quid pro quo.

Except there's nothing impeachable about calling to investigate someone. Esp. someone who actually has some the appearance of possible impropriety.

Do you really think we don't work cooperatively to investigate people across national lines all the time? Are Biden and his son above the law b/c he is running for office? If he was just a leader figure but not a candidate would it be OK?

When Obama decided to investigate Trump was that impeachable? They used foreign assets and statements from foreign actors to justify it, was that impeachable?

You act as if there's some clear cut law here, or even some prior norm of behavior, that Trump has violated so clearly it's a done discussion. None of that is really the case.

This is a political act, and should be decided politically. If you think what Trump has done is wrong then vote for the other candidate, if you are OK with it then vote for him. But nothing in this qualifies as impeachable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

This is a political act, and should be decided politically. If you think what Trump has done is wrong then vote for the other candidate, if you are OK with it then vote for him. But nothing in this qualifies as impeachable.

---

I actually agree with this. Except, your last sentence should be a part of the first. Impeachments, for better or worse, are now politics. They have been that way for years now. Clinton's certainly was (as you have posted).

At this point, for the purposes of removing him from office, it doesn't matter if what he did was illegal or "impeachable". It only matters what voters think. If independent and Republican voters start turning against him...so will Republican Senators...and he will be impeached. If they don't, he won't.
All of this is political maneuvering for 2020 (and I am not saying it SHOULD be..I am just saying it is). Pelosi knows that. So does Trump. The question (as I keep posting) is what do independents think? Republicans will defend him and do it even more so (which is why his fundraising is growing). And Dems will hate him even more (which is why Biden's fundraising is growing). So, neither side is going to move the other. So its all about those undecideds in the middle or more moderate voters.

So far, it seems, Democrats are slightly winning this "political game". Polls are showing the majority of Americans want him impeached. And his favorability ratings are the lowest they have been. Even Rasmussen finally is catching up to other polls and showing this. Certainly, he could move it back the other direction. And he will certainly try. I just continue to go back to what I have said all along: the guy needs to stop playing to his base if he wants to be re-elected.
He is going to be the nominee. And they are going to come out and vote for him. If I were his campaign manager I would take his phone away, I would change his twitter password, and I probably would have had him do exactly what he said with China. Of course, I would have been fired in 3 days but oh well. Ha
But from a political standpoint, the guy needs to appeal to the middle. And he is just not doing that.

Well technically the House impeaches, so he could very well be "impeached". He won't be convicted in the Senate however unless the entire GOP decides to shift and honestly Trump would have to go along with it for it to work, and he won't.

I don't worry about polls at this point. First I don't think they're sound any more, doing things like phone based polls in an era of phone blocking and such, as well as their projected "likely voter" approach.

second, these things move when events happen, then move again.

Honestly I don't see how he has any numbers at all given the most vicious and biased media onslaught in modern history. I'm not sure Nixon was even more villified by the press, and certainly other than Watergate I can't think of the media being this over the top since maybe the 19th century or early 20th. It's absolutely insane the slant being played yet he still manages to keep some numbers.

But the biggest reason I dont' worry about them is it's way too far from election day and no opponent has been beat up yet. That makes a lot of difference b/c these things aren't ever "I love this guy", it's "I hate this guy less than that other guy (or girl)".

When it's Trump's warts against someone else's warts (likely Warren) people answer different.

Seriously, in a vacuum Trump is never President. I wouldn't support him, but when it was between his ass-hat behavior or Hillary's corruption and liberalism it was a much different decision to make.

He committed a felony on live tv! Come on lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

He committed a felony on live tv! Come on lol.

---

OK. Please cite the statute for me.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

---

See, that's the problem. You see that as a cut and dried application, and it's not. I don't even have time to list all the ways in which this has nothing to do with foreign contributions.

It's OK, it won't be possible for you to see it any other way, I get that. Trump just seems to have that effect on people. It's like an odd superpower.

Of course when the Obama administration does those things it's OK. Somehow none of those laws apply, but with Trump it's cut and dried.

So it goes.

What I find funny in this thread is the left is crucifying Trump, the right absolutely sees it as turn about as fair play and the libertarians are having to play referee between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

What I find funny in this thread is the left is crucifying Trump, the right absolutely sees it as turn about as fair play and the libertarians are having to play referee between the two.

---

I liken being a Libertarian to sitting way up high over the field. Helps make it clearer IMO b/c you see more forest, see the patterns.

I don't care about Trump, or the GOP, or the Democrats. I care about staying on the path of the Great Experiment.

Trump helps get us closer to it in some ways (judicial appointments) and farther from it in others (spending like a nut). But it's the only choice on the table that isn't just flat in the other complete direction.

As far as this goes, it's easy to see the sides of the road from this distance. Nothing Trump has done is any more out of bounds than anything any other President has done.

Bush II (and Bush I) were accused of starting entire wars for political purpose. Am I to believe that Kennedy and LBJ and Nixon didn't do anything in the course of their decisions about wars that wasn't influenced by winning elections?


OK, so let's talk about actual acts against an opponent. How about Obama's IRS trying to limit conservative spending by denying tax status? that got dropped like a hot potato in the media, that should have send people into orbit. It was direct interference in the election by using the power of government, got no traction at all.

Obama was investigating Trump apparently based on nothing. Hundreds of supposedly secret communications were "outed" by various officials, FISA warrants issued on the basis of non-existent evidence and absolute lies (like the media story they cited).

That's all direct interference with an election by a sitting President and his administration. It involved foreign sources and foreign agents.

In the end this isn't legal, it's political. Trump has been completely up front about what he did, and it's his right to investigate people, just like it was Obama's. Whether either of these two investigations were done for the public good or for political gains is in the end up to the voters to decide.

And fwiw the answer to both is "both". Neither is about to investigate allies, and both are more than happy to investigate enemies that show enough blood in the water to justify it and give them cover.

Welcome to big boy politics.