Page 1194 of 1422 FirstFirst ... 19469410941144118411921193119411951196120412441294 ... LastLast
Results 23,861 to 23,880 of 28437

Thread: The Trump Presidency

  1. #23861
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    Perhaps someone with more time than me can start listing all of the items that aren't "really news" that have popped up since 2015

    were you a Trump voter ?
    Nope. I haven't had a presidential candidate I thought worthy of my vote in a while.

    As for the things that aren't news, we live in the age of social media and a 24 hour news cycle. You see lots of completely irrelevant stuff get reported.

    I should say, that document isn't news on it's own. Looking at it, there's nothing obviously nefarious about it. Most people don't move money around between entities that only exist on paper but then again, most people don't the assets and liabilities of Trump. This kind of stuff is extremely common among the super rich and also at higher levels of business.

    Maybe that's the document that proves the key to unraveling the Trump empire. It's impossible to tell. It's like trying to tell what an image on a computer screen is by looking at one pixel.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to striker42 For This Useful Post:

    acesfull86 (11-19-2019)

  3. #23862
    if my thought dreams could be seen goldfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,084
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,337
    Thanked in
    2,262 Posts
    Loves the troops and America first or something

    "For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

  4. #23863
    Waiting for Free Agency acesfull86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,899
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,746
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,281
    Thanked in
    908 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    Nope. I haven't had a presidential candidate I thought worthy of my vote in a while.

    As for the things that aren't news, we live in the age of social media and a 24 hour news cycle. You see lots of completely irrelevant stuff get reported.

    I should say, that document isn't news on it's own. Looking at it, there's nothing obviously nefarious about it. Most people don't move money around between entities that only exist on paper but then again, most people don't the assets and liabilities of Trump. This kind of stuff is extremely common among the super rich and also at higher levels of business.

    Maybe that's the document that proves the key to unraveling the Trump empire. It's impossible to tell. It's like trying to tell what an image on a computer screen is by looking at one pixel.
    I’m curious how long you’re able to maintain your standards of logic and reason before this board wears you down...

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to acesfull86 For This Useful Post:

    Jaw (11-19-2019)

  6. #23864
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    And those promised tax returns.

    Bet we see an Infrastrcture bill before your client produces his promised returns that will, exonerate, is I think the word you are looking for ?

  7. #23865
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    We are beyond giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

  8. #23866
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    And those promised tax returns.

    Bet we see an Infrastrcture bill before your client produces his promised returns that will, exonerate, is I think the word you are looking for ?
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    We are beyond giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.


    What makes you think he's "my client". I honestly don't like Trump. I find him a despicable person and disagree with many of his policies.

    Here's where I'm coming from. I'm an attorney who majored in political science in undergrad. The self righteous assurance of the rightness of my beliefs that I had during my younger days was burned out by a greater knowledge of how things work and being trained to analyze all sides of a given argument. Instead I make an effort to approach politics as rationally as possible and to found my political beliefs on solid reasoning and the assumption that anyone in office is generally going to screw you.

    I'm also not saying give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt implies the assumption they are innocent until evidence proves them guilty. I'm saying don't draw conclusions based on insufficient evidence. You may have sufficient evidence on which to base your belief that Trump is corrupt. But does that general belief in his corruption mean that the sheet of paper you presented be assumed to be evidence of corruption?

    My goal in political discussions is just to make people take a second and question their assumptions. Assumptions lead to poorly reasoned positions. It's the basis for my disgust with the abortion debate. Everyone always assumes their position on the legal/ethical/moral status of a fetus is correct. From there it's easy to say abortion is murder or abortion restrictions are usurping a woman's rights to do with her body what she wishes. Stopping for a second and questioning the base assumption being made might give people pause.

  9. #23867
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Assuming anyone in office is going to screw you huh, while railing against ( and counseling to take a second look ) those that have learned to take for granted certain people in office are as crooked as the day is long
    Gotcha

    I strongly disagree with my Representative and suspect he is uncomfortable with the leader of his party while doubting he will stand up to him.
    Yet, I really don't think he is out to screw me . Just not smart or savvy enough to get in the front of the herd

    And what you call assumptions regarding Trump are more a learned response.
    Someone once opined "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on -shame on - wont get fooled again"
    Wondering aloud, what has he ever told the truth about? For lords sake, with his "university" he bilked returning vets to the $25M.
    He is not allowed to run charity foundations in his home state.
    " Assumptions lead to poorly reasoned positions " might in the case of DJT been a viable sentence circa 2012.

    What I read you write is giving at every turn DJT the benefit of the doubt.
    In a rapid response mode that would bring a smile to Roger Stones face
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  10. #23868
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    A Manhattan judge has cleared the way for President Donald Trump to be deposed in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former "Apprentice" contestant who has accused Trump of sexual assault.
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  11. #23869
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    Assuming anyone in office is going to screw you huh, while railing against ( and counseling to take a second look ) those that have learned to take for granted certain people in office are as crooked as the day is long
    Gotcha

    I strongly disagree with my Representative and suspect he is uncomfortable with the leader of his party while doubting he will stand up to him.
    Yet, I really don't think he is out to screw me . Just not smart or savvy enough to get in the front of the herd

    And what you call assumptions regarding Trump are more a learned response.
    Someone once opined "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on -shame on - wont get fooled again"
    Wondering aloud, what has he ever told the truth about? For lords sake, with his "university" he bilked returning vets to the $25M.
    He is not allowed to run charity foundations in his home state.
    " Assumptions lead to poorly reasoned positions " might in the case of DJT been a viable sentence circa 2012.

    What I read you write is giving at every turn DJT the benefit of the doubt.
    In a rapid response mode that would bring a smile to Roger Stones face
    You can take for granted Trump is crooked if you'd like. That's certainly a legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from available evidence. What I caution against is automatically assigning nefarious intent to everything he does regardless of the available evidence. No one is nefarious in everything they do.

    That sheet of paper you posted is a good example. There's nothing about it that indicates any nefarious or honest intent. It's a single data point. Assuming it's innocent is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming it's nefarious is based on nothing other than Trump being involved. Both are poorly reasoned. There's no reason to draw any conclusion. Just file it away as a date point for later reference when more data has been extracted.

    As for your rep, he's not out to screw you. He just doesn't care if you get screwed. Almost all holders of public office in DC care only about holding onto their office and expanding their influence. To do this they ally themselves with party leaders and cater to wealthy donors or other special interest groups that can help them. The end result is usually you getting screwed. It's not personal, it's just that your representative would probably sell you as a sex slave to Epstein's ghost if it guaranteed a one point bump in his next election.

    You seem to think I'm a fan of Trump who gives him the benefit of the doubt overall. I'm not and I don't. I personally dislike Trump. I think he's a lousy human being and a poor leader. However, I don't let that conclusion I've drawn about him in general lead me to make poorly reasoned conclusions in every issue to do with him. Trump's character is simply one factor to weigh in drawing conclusions.

    Also, you seem to think I'm carrying water for Trump. I'm not. But I think this conclusion is symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics. People generally think there are two sides, their side and the wrong side. Once you realize different people have different priorities, motivations, histories, biases, etc, you see that it's more of a spectrum and that very little is black and white.

    Let's look at impeachment for example. Many act as if there are only two sides. On the one side you have to believe that Trump did everything alleged for purely evil intentions and should be removed from office. The other side is that Trump is totally innocent and is the greatest President ever. And there is no space between those viewpoints.

    My position is more nuanced than that. I currently oppose impeachment but it's not because I'm a Trump fan or am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I believe Trump tried to leverage the Ukraine to investigate and announce it publicly and that this was likely motivated by a desire to get an advantage in the election and harm a political opponent. That fits with what I know of Trump. I also believe Trump held a sincere belief that Biden was corrupt in pressuring the Ukraine to fire that prosecutor. Holding beliefs that benefit him also fits what I know of Trump.

    Ultimately, I currently oppose impeachment for several reasons. First, I think if Trump sincerely believed Biden was corrupt, then I don't think he did anything impeachable. A President can leverage foreign powers to investigate corruption. It might be reprehensible how he was trying to turn it to his advantage but I'm very, very hesitant to set a precedent of impeaching a president for that. A president's foreign policy powers are vast and for good reason. I don't want to tie the hands of future Presidents or cause them to hesitate because they're afraid of giving the appearance of personal gain being a motivation for their actions.

    If someone from his inner circle defects and reveals it was all purely an attempt to (no pun intended) trump up a bogus investigation to harm Biden, my view may change. But Trump for me, believing that Biden was actually corrupt would be sufficient to reduce this to non-impeachable.

    Next, impeaching Trump and failing to remove him from office will further degrade impeachment as a legitimate check on the President's power. I loathe the idea of reducing one of the few legitimate checks on a president to a political tool. The Republicans did ii against Clinton and it was a huge mistake no one has been stupid enough to repeat. I want impeachment as a live threat, not as something that is leveled against a President anytime the opposing party controls the house.

    Also, impeachment is an extreme remedy. It's Congress usurping the results of the election system. You don't fire this bullet haphazardly.

    If nothing new and crazy emerges from all of this, I think the House should formally censure Trump. Moving forward with impeachment would do nothing but leave Trump in office, further diminish impeachment as a check, and set bad precedent.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to striker42 For This Useful Post:

    Jaw (11-20-2019)

  13. #23870
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    A Manhattan judge has cleared the way for President Donald Trump to be deposed in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former "Apprentice" contestant who has accused Trump of sexual assault.
    This is an interesting legal question that I'm not sure where I fall. The President is co-equal to the judiciary so I'm hesitant to allow the Courts to be able to compel the President to appear and speak.

    Conversely, the President and the Presidency are different things. Trump the President is co-equal. Trump the man is not.

    Ultimately, I probably agree the Trump should be able to be called in for a deposition for acts that are outside the scope of his office and especially for acts that occurred prior to him being elected. I will say I think this should be EXTREMELY rare. I don't like the idea of countless judges with political bias in the thousands of courts across the country being able to force the President to appear. There probably needs to be some kind of check on it. Not sure what it should be though.

  14. #23871
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    This is an interesting legal question that I'm not sure where I fall. The President is co-equal to the judiciary so I'm hesitant to allow the Courts to be able to compel the President to appear and speak.

    Conversely, the President and the Presidency are different things. Trump the President is co-equal. Trump the man is not.

    Ultimately, I probably agree the Trump should be able to be called in for a deposition for acts that are outside the scope of his office and especially for acts that occurred prior to him being elected. I will say I think this should be EXTREMELY rare. I don't like the idea of countless judges with political bias in the thousands of courts across the country being able to force the President to appear. There probably needs to be some kind of check on it. Not sure what it should be though.
    I think the courts like to rule narrowly in these sorts of cases. If appearing as a witness requires extensive preparation, then I think the court owes a certain amount of deference to the executive. Not sure this case falls in that category.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  15. #23872
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    You can take for granted Trump is crooked if you'd like. That's certainly a legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from available evidence. What I caution against is automatically assigning nefarious intent to everything he does regardless of the available evidence. No one is nefarious in everything they do.

    That sheet of paper you posted is a good example. There's nothing about it that indicates any nefarious or honest intent. It's a single data point. Assuming it's innocent is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming it's nefarious is based on nothing other than Trump being involved. Both are poorly reasoned. There's no reason to draw any conclusion. Just file it away as a date point for later reference when more data has been extracted.

    As for your rep, he's not out to screw you. He just doesn't care if you get screwed. Almost all holders of public office in DC care only about holding onto their office and expanding their influence. To do this they ally themselves with party leaders and cater to wealthy donors or other special interest groups that can help them. The end result is usually you getting screwed. It's not personal, it's just that your representative would probably sell you as a sex slave to Epstein's ghost if it guaranteed a one point bump in his next election.

    You seem to think I'm a fan of Trump who gives him the benefit of the doubt overall. I'm not and I don't. I personally dislike Trump. I think he's a lousy human being and a poor leader. However, I don't let that conclusion I've drawn about him in general lead me to make poorly reasoned conclusions in every issue to do with him. Trump's character is simply one factor to weigh in drawing conclusions.

    Also, you seem to think I'm carrying water for Trump. I'm not. But I think this conclusion is symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics. People generally think there are two sides, their side and the wrong side. Once you realize different people have different priorities, motivations, histories, biases, etc, you see that it's more of a spectrum and that very little is black and white.

    Let's look at impeachment for example. Many act as if there are only two sides. On the one side you have to believe that Trump did everything alleged for purely evil intentions and should be removed from office. The other side is that Trump is totally innocent and is the greatest President ever. And there is no space between those viewpoints.

    My position is more nuanced than that. I currently oppose impeachment but it's not because I'm a Trump fan or am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I believe Trump tried to leverage the Ukraine to investigate and announce it publicly and that this was likely motivated by a desire to get an advantage in the election and harm a political opponent. That fits with what I know of Trump. I also believe Trump held a sincere belief that Biden was corrupt in pressuring the Ukraine to fire that prosecutor. Holding beliefs that benefit him also fits what I know of Trump.

    Ultimately, I currently oppose impeachment for several reasons. First, I think if Trump sincerely believed Biden was corrupt, then I don't think he did anything impeachable. A President can leverage foreign powers to investigate corruption. It might be reprehensible how he was trying to turn it to his advantage but I'm very, very hesitant to set a precedent of impeaching a president for that. A president's foreign policy powers are vast and for good reason. I don't want to tie the hands of future Presidents or cause them to hesitate because they're afraid of giving the appearance of personal gain being a motivation for their actions.

    If someone from his inner circle defects and reveals it was all purely an attempt to (no pun intended) trump up a bogus investigation to harm Biden, my view may change. But Trump for me, believing that Biden was actually corrupt would be sufficient to reduce this to non-impeachable.

    Next, impeaching Trump and failing to remove him from office will further degrade impeachment as a legitimate check on the President's power. I loathe the idea of reducing one of the few legitimate checks on a president to a political tool. The Republicans did ii against Clinton and it was a huge mistake no one has been stupid enough to repeat. I want impeachment as a live threat, not as something that is leveled against a President anytime the opposing party controls the house.

    Also, impeachment is an extreme remedy. It's Congress usurping the results of the election system. You don't fire this bullet haphazardly.

    If nothing new and crazy emerges from all of this, I think the House should formally censure Trump. Moving forward with impeachment would do nothing but leave Trump in office, further diminish impeachment as a check, and set bad precedent.
    This is the most thoughtful post I've read on this board in a long, long time.
    Go get him!

    Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club

  16. #23873
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post


    If someone from his inner circle defects and reveals it was all purely an attempt to (no pun intended) trump up a bogus investigation to harm Biden, my view may change. But Trump for me, believing that Biden was actually corrupt would be sufficient to reduce this to non-impeachable.
    I think Volker said he thought it was bogus yesterday.

    I would hope that if someday a president comes into office and sincerely believes that his opponents are little green men from Mars who need to be arrested that the system would not allow this to go forward no matter how sincerely held that belief was.

    I would also add that chosen one was more interested in a public announcement by the Ukrainians so he would have them in a "public box" as Bill Taylor testified. This is a bit different from an investigation itself. If there was sincere interest in a serious investigation it would not have started with a public statement by the president of Ukraine naming the target. Serious investigations do not start like this. This was a politically motivated attempt to enlist a vulnerable country into smearing a political opponent. Let's be real, we all know that.
    Last edited by nsacpi; 11-20-2019 at 10:58 AM.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  17. #23874
    Anytime Now Frankie...
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    1,398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    380
    Thanked in
    268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    I think Volker said he thought it was bogus yesterday.

    I would hope that if someday a president comes into office and sincerely believes that his opponents are little green men from Mars who need to be arrested that the system would not allow this to go forward no matter how sincerely held that belief was.
    I personally believe that Sondland's testimony today (twice said thus far) that Ukraine didn't have to carry out the investigations, they only had to publicly announce them, is proof enough that it was not about any sincerely held belief of corruption. If you sincerely want to fight corruption, you want there to be investigations, not the mere announcement of investigations that will never happen.

  18. #23875
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowman View Post
    I personally believe that Sondland's testimony today (twice said thus far) that Ukraine didn't have to carry out the investigations, they only had to publicly announce them, is proof enough that it was not about any sincerely held belief of corruption. If you sincerely want to fight corruption, you want there to be investigations, not the mere announcement of investigations that will never happen.
    yeah...I added a bit to my post to note that...we all know this whole thing was bogus and that chosen one just wanted to smear Biden
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  19. #23876
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowman View Post
    I personally believe that Sondland's testimony today (twice said thus far) that Ukraine didn't have to carry out the investigations, they only had to publicly announce them, is proof enough that it was not about any sincerely held belief of corruption. If you sincerely want to fight corruption, you want there to be investigations, not the mere announcement of investigations that will never happen.
    I've been working and haven't been watching the testimony. Did Sondland say it was communicated to the Ukraine that they didn't have to actually investigate, just announce it, or was the communication that the funds would be released upon announcing the investigation? This is an important distinction. If you're telling the Ukraine they just have to announce it and not follow through, that shows more there's no intent to get an investigation of corruption. If you're saying the funds would be released upon an announcement of the investigation (before any investigation actually happens), there could still be an expectation that they would actually follow up and investigate but the administration wasn't going to make the Ukraine wait for the aid.

  20. #23877
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    I've been working and haven't been watching the testimony. Did Sondland say it was communicated to the Ukraine that they didn't have to actually investigate, just announce it, or was the communication that the funds would be released upon announcing the investigation? This is an important distinction. If you're telling the Ukraine they just have to announce it and not follow through, that shows more there's no intent to get an investigation of corruption. If you're saying the funds would be released upon an announcement of the investigation (before any investigation actually happens), there could still be an expectation that they would actually follow up and investigate but the administration wasn't going to make the Ukraine wait for the aid.
    Taylor also testified that chosen one's interest was having Zelinksy in a "public box" as far as the investigations go. No serious investigation starts with the president of a country publicly announcing the target of the investigation. It is bogus on its face. And also highly improper in terms of smearing the target without the investigation getting started much less running its course.
    Last edited by nsacpi; 11-20-2019 at 11:13 AM.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  21. #23878
    Anytime Now Frankie...
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    1,398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    380
    Thanked in
    268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    I've been working and haven't been watching the testimony. Did Sondland say it was communicated to the Ukraine that they didn't have to actually investigate, just announce it, or was the communication that the funds would be released upon announcing the investigation? This is an important distinction. If you're telling the Ukraine they just have to announce it and not follow through, that shows more there's no intent to get an investigation of corruption. If you're saying the funds would be released upon an announcement of the investigation (before any investigation actually happens), there could still be an expectation that they would actually follow up and investigate but the administration wasn't going to make the Ukraine wait for the aid.
    The testimony was that the aid was that the aid and meeting were contingent on the announcement, and that Ukraine was told that multiple times, and that it was on Trump's orders, and that no one in the administration cared if the investigations ever happened, only that they were announced. It was not testified that Ukraine was told they didn't have to carry them out, but I would argue that in this case it is our intent (to get an announcement to help in an election) that matters, and this shows our true intent.

  22. #23879
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    yeah...I added a bit to my post to note that...we all know this whole thing was bogus and that chosen one just wanted to smear Biden
    For the record, I believe that smearing Biden was the primary motivation. However, I'm approaching this like you would approach a crime. There must be mens rea and actus reus, the criminal intent and the criminal act. If you do something illegal with no criminal intent, you've not committed a crime (e.g. you mistakenly shoot someone while hunting). Conversely, if you have criminal intent but do a legal act, you've not committed a crime (e.g. you're think a $20 bill sitting on the floor belongs to a co-worker, you steal it but it turns out it's a $20 you dropped earlier).

    You need both the criminal intent and the criminal act to commit a crime. If Trump believed there was corruption, then leveraging the Ukraine to launch an investigation would be a legitimate use of Presidential power. Even if Trumps primary intent was personal gain, that means there's mens rea but no actus reus.

    So while many are focusing on the quid pro quo portion, I'm looking at whether there's evidence that Trump knew an investigation was bogus.

  23. #23880
    Anytime Now Frankie...
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    1,398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    380
    Thanked in
    268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    For the record, I believe that smearing Biden was the primary motivation. However, I'm approaching this like you would approach a crime. There must be mens rea and actus reus, the criminal intent and the criminal act. If you do something illegal with no criminal intent, you've not committed a crime (e.g. you mistakenly shoot someone while hunting). Conversely, if you have criminal intent but do a legal act, you've not committed a crime (e.g. you're think a $20 bill sitting on the floor belongs to a co-worker, you steal it but it turns out it's a $20 you dropped earlier).

    You need both the criminal intent and the criminal act to commit a crime. If Trump believed there was corruption, then leveraging the Ukraine to launch an investigation would be a legitimate use of Presidential power. Even if Trumps primary intent was personal gain, that means there's mens rea but no actus reus.

    So while many are focusing on the quid pro quo portion, I'm looking at whether there's evidence that Trump knew an investigation was bogus.
    One problem I have with this line of thinking is that it would easily devolve into a current Jim Jordan line of defense "well, when the whistleblower report came out, they released the hold on the aid without the investigations and the Ukrainians cancelled Zelensky's interview with Fareed, so there was no crime." Cancelling the crime because you realize you've just been caught should not be a defense.

Similar Threads

  1. The Pence Presidency
    By nsacpi in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-23-2018, 08:14 PM
  2. Trump Taxes
    By 57Brave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-18-2017, 02:22 AM
  3. What will become of the Trump administration?
    By Runnin in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-08-2017, 04:52 PM
  4. Trump winning the Presidency...
    By weso1 in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-14-2016, 02:27 PM
  5. Trump U
    By 57Brave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 11-26-2016, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •