Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

06-27-2017 , 03:51 AM
Trump said Obama made us look bad all the way until he left office. So we should be looking better now that the king of making us look good is in.
06-27-2017 , 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Trump said Obama made us look bad all the way until he left office. So we should be looking better now that the king of making us look good is in.
Not relevant either, the view of a politician with his own set of advisors is not going to be the same as random people on the street.
06-27-2017 , 04:08 AM
No matter how you cut it trump sucks in the worlds eyes.
06-27-2017 , 04:18 AM
WTF is up with the high Trump support numbers in Africa?
06-27-2017 , 04:40 AM
Government controlled media?
06-27-2017 , 05:01 AM
From a quick google it appears to be anti-establishment sentiment and rank stupidity. So the same reasons for his popularity in America, then.
06-27-2017 , 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
apples and oranges

you need the comparison of Obama in 2009 with Trump in 2017
Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2009.
06-27-2017 , 06:14 AM
Obama was wildly popular in the rest of the world for the entire duration of his presidency.
06-27-2017 , 06:48 AM


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...48931172556802
06-27-2017 , 07:13 AM
Ignoring the GOP's lack of desire to do anything, can a POTUS be brought up on impeachment charges without breaking any laws? I'm just wondering how things like abuse of power, using the office of the presidency to target individual vengeances, not feeling like working for a year or two, violation of the oath of office, misleading the public, inactivity when faced with attacks from a foreign power, etc. all work.

Is there a limit to how much harm he can do or something? Or, if there must always be at least one underlying crime, how is that not moot for the people who argue that the President cannot break the law?

Abuse of Power is the biggest umbrella listed above, as it encompasses many of the others. It's also unique in the sense that it is nearly always a pattern of behavior as opposed to a single event. Matter of fact, I can't conceive of a non-crime big enough to be a smoking gun for abuse. It basically HAS TO BE a trend in order to count as problematic behavior. Intent must need to play a large role as well.

Any lawyers here feel like chiming in?
06-27-2017 , 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
Ignoring the GOP's lack of desire to do anything, can a POTUS be brought up on impeachment charges without breaking any laws? I'm just wondering how things like abuse of power, using the office of the presidency to target individual vengeances, not feeling like working for a year or two, violation of the oath of office, misleading the public, inactivity when faced with attacks from a foreign power, etc. all work.

Is there a limit to how much harm he can do or something? Or, if there must always be at least one underlying crime, how is that not moot for the people who argue that the President cannot break the law?

Abuse of Power is the biggest umbrella listed above, as it encompasses many of the others. It's also unique in the sense that it is nearly always a pattern of behavior as opposed to a single event. Matter of fact, I can't conceive of a non-crime big enough to be a smoking gun for abuse. It basically HAS TO BE a trend in order to count as problematic behavior. Intent must need to play a large role as well.

Any lawyers here feel like chiming in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

(This is a 1993 case not about President Nixon, but against a judge with the same name that was impeached and convicted and removed from his judgeship)

Quote:
The majority opinion (the court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published) held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I. Sec. 3 of the Constitution gave the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word "sole" it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word "try" was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.
In short, a crime is whatever the House says it is, and a conviction by the Senate is final.

I agree with you, in that, for example, the House would use umbrella crimes such as "Abuse of Power" or "Corruption".
06-27-2017 , 07:31 AM
he cant necessarily be removed by impeachment specifically for some of those things but there is another law/amendment (or whatever this is called) for removing presidents that are unable to function normally in their jobs.
06-27-2017 , 07:35 AM
He's just retweeting Fox & Friends now.
06-27-2017 , 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Trump went on and on about how badly the world viewed us under Obama but somehow those numbers will fit right in with making America great.
I always found this such a bizarre talking point. I wish someone had asked for data whenever it was asserted.
06-27-2017 , 07:58 AM
It's wrong to focus on "crimes". The phrase is "high crimes and misdameanors", which was understood to mean abuse of power more generally. If 2/3 of the Senate thinks something is impeachable, it is. Withdraw from the climate accord could in theory be impeachable or the Louisiana Purchase.

At some level democracy assume a level of rationality and competence among the governed and their representatives, including with regard to understanding and implementing the Constitution. Whatever technical arguments one wants to make, Clinton was not removed from office and most people regarded Gingrich as a blowhard, a judgement that has more than stood the test of time.
06-27-2017 , 08:17 AM
Your occasional reminder.

American conservatism is now headed by a con man because the movement as a whole is largely a series of grifts https://t.co/iFaPzaux6Q https://t.co/XAOjyLPlhU

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...72977939365888
06-27-2017 , 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
29 seems absurdly high for Australia, the last survey I saw had Trump's approval rating at 10% here. The only thing I can guess is that some people just aren't following the whole circus and are expressing a general confidence in the US to handle world affairs (which is a little bit lol in itself, but anyway...).
Maybe the poll was bogan heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyebooger
He's just retweeting Fox & Friends now.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/presi...ds-commentary/

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/18/medi...eet/index.html

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump...de-same-point/

He has been for a while. Lazy **** even plagiarizes his tweets.
06-27-2017 , 09:10 AM
The Fox & Friends **** has to stop. Fox even admits it's not a new show but a "conservative" talk show. So effectively our President is getting his morning news from Regis and Kelly.

Our President is effectively running a disinformation campaign against his own people. It's gross, unamerican and should be illegal.
06-27-2017 , 09:33 AM


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...82547235651584
06-27-2017 , 09:47 AM
He sounds like a ****ing mental patient.
06-27-2017 , 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
He sounds like a ****ing mental patient.
He sounds like a russian style propaganda campaign.
06-27-2017 , 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop
Is that typical UN Ambassador type stuff to say?
She's kinda hot though.
06-27-2017 , 11:10 AM
Cool storybr0 about how Harvey Levin/TMZ are in bed with Trump

06-27-2017 , 11:19 AM
Hey, remember Trump's lawyer from the recent Chris Wallace interview?

Cliffs: "The President is being investigated for an unfair reason" "So you're confirming the President is under investigation." "No, how dare you suggest such a thing! Really, where do you get these ideas, Chris?"

Well, shocker, it turns out like client like lawyer. He's funnelled millions in donations for his Christian advocacy outfit to his personal and family enrichment.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ulow-donations

Quote:
Documents obtained by the Guardian show Sekulow that month approved plans to push poor and jobless people to donate money to his Christian nonprofit, which since 2000 has steered more than $60m to Sekulow, his family and their businesses.

Telemarketers for the nonprofit, Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (Case), were instructed in contracts signed by Sekulow to urge people who pleaded poverty or said they were out of work to dig deep for a “sacrificial gift”.

“I can certainly understand how that would make it difficult for you to share a gift like that right now,” they told retirees who said they were on fixed incomes and had “no extra money” – before asking if they could spare “even $20 within the next three weeks”.

In addition to using tens of millions of dollars in donations to pay Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his niece and nephew, and their firms, Case has also been used to provide a series of unusual loans and property deals to the Sekulow family.
Here is a more detailed article from 2005 about his extensive self dealing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070416...=1130499506270
06-27-2017 , 11:27 AM


https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/879706437169147906

      
m