Trump ousts Jeff Sessions from AG position, Mueller investigation endangered

[the_randomizer]

Ah, politics, always a farce.

 

[brickmii82]

Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war ...

Edit: Adding to the Shakespeare ...

Sessions: "I recuse myself"
Trump: "Y tu Brute?!?"

 

[Hanafuda]

so say if the sealed tax documents contain missing papers (IE tax evasion which is a federal crime and can result in jail time,even though trump cant be criminally charged, as you said if it was a serious crime they could bypass the senate?) (then again politicians are crooks anyway given power ppl become corrupt)

Ok, here's the thing about President Trump's history as a taxpayer - he doesn't like paying taxes. I think this is probably true of most Americans. He admittedly has used legal strategies, as most wealthy individuals do (like the Clintons, for example), which sound sketchy when the press wants to spin it that way, but are perfectly legal and the IRS apparently has no issue with any of Trump's taxpaying history. Think about it ... his tax returns have been audited many times, but he's never charged by the IRS for breaking any laws, found to have underpaid, fined, etc.

So there's probably nothing *real* there that the IRS would ever take seriously, because they've already got Trump's tax returns for every year, ever, and they've dug through his shit a number of times already. But the new Democrat majority in the House can of course allege that Trump potentially evaded paying taxes somehow to justify an investigation, maybe get his tax returns (you can bet there'll be litigation if they try), and then make something of it on CNN with Don Lemon. But even if that generated scandal was voted for in the House as grounds for impeachment, it would still be tried in the Senate.

 

[x65943]

So in short

He waits literally ONE day after the election to do this

Why?

He knew this action could jeopardize republican senate seats, the only thing preventing him from being impeached for treason

So congrats if you voted R this election, "your" side waited one day to pull the carpet from under you

(Full disclosure I voted Libertarian)

 

[Hanafuda]

So in short

He waits literally ONE day after the election to do this

Why?

He knew this action could jeopardize republican senate seats, the only thing preventing him from being impeached for treason

So congrats if you voted R this election, "your" side waited one day to pull the carpet from under you

(Full disclosure I voted Libertarian)

... treason???

Wow. Please explain.

 

[x65943]

... treason???

Wow. Please explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

Trump has now admitted he knew about this prior to it happening.

It's pretty open and shut treason.

Trump JR. was expected to be indicted anyday

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/donald-trump-jr-expecting-to-be-indicted-by-mueller-soon.html

Then Trump pulls this last ditch effort, it's gonna get ugly from here.

 

[Hanafuda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

Trump has now admitted he knew about this prior to it happening.

It's pretty open and shut treason.

Trump JR. was expected to be indicted anyday

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/donald-trump-jr-expecting-to-be-indicted-by-mueller-soon.html

Then Trump pulls this last ditch effort, it's gonna get ugly from here.

No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."


Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.

You're gonna need to digest this ... the whole "colluded with Russia to sway the election" thing ... although there has been no actual proof this even occurred (of course it's possible we'll learn of hard evidence from Mueller's investigation, but so far, nope) ... even if it happened, it is NOT a crime. Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor of Constitutional law, known for decades) has made this clear over and over. It might constitute a 'political sin' that would damage a person's chances of re-election if proven, but there is no law against 'colluding' with anyone to increase chances of winning an election. If you research this, you'll find angry retorts from liberals (who are really angry with Dershowitz because he too is a liberal and shouldn't say such things even if true) that even if collusion isn't a crime, IF certain things can be shown to amount to knowing fraud by the Trump campaign, then some persons could go down for that. Election fraud. And they're right ... IF certain things can be shown. But it's still all speculation and people believing what they want to believe, without proof. Plenty of Republicans were guilty of that wrt: Hillary's not very smart email system and classified/top secret intelligence ... they just KNEW she was guilty (lock her up, etc), but Comey said the FBI can't prove it even if she is.

 

[brickmii82]

No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."


Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.

You're gonna need to digest this ... the whole "colluded with Russia to sway the election" thing ... although there has been no actual proof this even occurred (of course it's possible we'll learn of hard evidence from Mueller's investigation, but so far, nope) ... even if it happened, it is NOT a crime. Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor of Constitutional law, known for decades) has made this clear over and over. It might constitute a 'political sin' that would damage a person's chances of re-election if proven, but there is no law against 'colluding' with anyone to increase chances of winning an election. If you research this, you'll find angry retorts from liberals (who are really angry with Dershowitz because he too is a liberal and shouldn't say such things even if true) that even if collusion isn't a crime, IF certain things can be shown to amount to knowing fraud by the Trump campaign, then some persons could go down for that. Election fraud. And they're right ... IF certain things can be shown. But it's still all speculation and people believing what they want to believe, without proof. Plenty of Republicans were guilty of that wrt: Hillary's not very smart email system and classified/top secret intelligence ... they just KNEW she was guilty (lock her up, etc), but Comey said the FBI can't prove it even if she is.

I think the charge would be Obstruction of Justice if it comes out that he organized/went to/communicated/etc the meeting. But even then, he'd have to actually be questioned for that to even hold up. Iirc Mueller never questioned him. Or did he? I got burnt out on this shit awhile ago and stopped paying attention.

 

[x65943]

No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."


Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.

You're gonna need to digest this ... the whole "colluded with Russia to sway the election" thing ... although there has been no actual proof this even occurred (of course it's possible we'll learn of hard evidence from Mueller's investigation, but so far, nope) ... even if it happened, it is NOT a crime. Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor of Constitutional law, known for decades) has made this clear over and over. It might constitute a 'political sin' that would damage a person's chances of re-election if proven, but there is no law against 'colluding' with anyone to increase chances of winning an election. If you research this, you'll find angry retorts from liberals (who are really angry with Dershowitz because he too is a liberal and shouldn't say such things even if true) that even if collusion isn't a crime, IF certain things can be shown to amount to knowing fraud by the Trump campaign, then some persons could go down for that. Election fraud. And they're right ... IF certain things can be shown. But it's still all speculation and people believing what they want to believe, without proof. Plenty of Republicans were guilty of that wrt: Hillary's not very smart email system and classified/top secret intelligence ... they just KNEW she was guilty (lock her up, etc), but Comey said the FBI can't prove it even if she is.

Ι think the biggest takeaway is this.

The law is kind of gray. What does it mean to "give an enemy aid"?

Bottom line is if the right people were in power he could be charged with this, if the opposite were in power he couldn't.

 

[SG854]

No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."


Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.

You're gonna need to digest this ... the whole "colluded with Russia to sway the election" thing ... although there has been no actual proof this even occurred (of course it's possible we'll learn of hard evidence from Mueller's investigation, but so far, nope) ... even if it happened, it is NOT a crime. Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor of Constitutional law, known for decades) has made this clear over and over. It might constitute a 'political sin' that would damage a person's chances of re-election if proven, but there is no law against 'colluding' with anyone to increase chances of winning an election. If you research this, you'll find angry retorts from liberals (who are really angry with Dershowitz because he too is a liberal and shouldn't say such things even if true) that even if collusion isn't a crime, IF certain things can be shown to amount to knowing fraud by the Trump campaign, then some persons could go down for that. Election fraud. And they're right ... IF certain things can be shown. But it's still all speculation and people believing what they want to believe, without proof. Plenty of Republicans were guilty of that wrt: Hillary's not very smart email system and classified/top secret intelligence ... they just KNEW she was guilty (lock her up, etc), but Comey said the FBI can't prove it even if she is.

Months of investigation and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted and the most they got was Hillary and Muller connections to Russia. The only person that doesn’t seem to have connections to Russia is Trump. A hillarious twist.

They are self projection the illegal stuff and manipulation they are doing on to Trump.

 

[the_randomizer]

*Grabs a lawn chair and popcorn*

Keep continuing, don't mind me. I'm just curious as to how Trump being impeached and that somehow the one to take over would somehow be better, by all means.

 

[x65943]

*Grabs a lawn chair and popcorn*

Keep continuing, don't mind me. I'm just curious as to how Trump being impeached and that somehow the one to take over would somehow be better, by all means.

Pence would be way better. First of all he is not gonna make us look like idiots in the world stage.

 

[3DPiper]

"I'm innocent and to prove it I will remove everyone investigating me to make sure I can't be proven guilty." - Trump logic

And yet- he hasn't removed anyone on the Muller investigation.. Trump continually says there is no evidence, and so far they have found no evidence.

 

[the_randomizer]

Pence would be way better. First of all he is not gonna make us look like idiots in the world stage.

Okay, that I can agree with

 

[Hanafuda]

*Grabs a lawn chair and popcorn*

Keep continuing, don't mind me. I'm just curious as to how Trump being impeached and that somehow the one to take over would somehow be better, by all means.

Maxine Waters already said they're gonna impeach Trump and throw him out, then they're gonna impeach Pence and throw him out. Kinda tells ya how sincere their complaints are.

 

[Viri]

Okay, that I can agree with

Don't worry, we'll Mike "AC/DC for the LGBT" Pence in 2024.

 

[the_randomizer]

Maxine Waters already said they're gonna impeach Trump and throw him out, then they're gonna impeach Pence and throw him out. Kinda tells ya how sincere their complaints are.

Who the hell is Maxine Waters? Well good luck with that, you crazy nut job; screw her complaints and her half-assed goals. She'd make a great candidate for 2020, because no one would vote for a weirdo.

 

[Viri]

Maxine Waters already said they're gonna impeach Trump and throw him out, then they're gonna impeach Pence and throw him out. Kinda tells ya how sincere their complaints are.

How? Didn't the Senate become even more red after the election?

 

[x65943]

How? Didn't the Senate become even more red after the election?

Yes, and since you need 2/3 majority to convict - like half of Republican senators would have to flip.

 

[Viri]

Yes, and since you need 2/3 majority to convict - like half of Republican senators would have to flip.

Well, then she's insane. The GOP couldn't impeach Clinton, despite having a majority. Trump would have to dig up the corpse of Regan and have sex with it on live TV. Even then, I doubt they'd vote for impeachment.