US Politics VI

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
slam dunk.

WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, who resigned last week, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency. Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/...on=top-news&WT.nav=top-news#commentsContainer
 
It is unclear whether Mr. Dowd discussed the pardons with Mr. Trump

“There were no discussions. Period,” Mr. Dowd said. “As far as I know, no discussions.”

Legal experts are divided about whether a pardon offer, even if given in exchange for continued loyalty, can be considered obstruction of justice. Presidents have constitutional authority to pardon people who face or were convicted of federal charges.

slam dunk.

:hmm:
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm not sure an article based on anonymous sources, that everyone involved with denies (which, granted, you'd expect them to), and that legal experts are divided on whether is a crime at all, is necessarily a "slam dunk". What, exactly, makes it a "slam dunk"? It's slam dunk what?

But OK. The newest slam dunk, since the "Trump shouting that someone should fire Mueller is slam dunk obstruction" slam dunk. This case has had more supposed "slam dunks" than a Harlem Globetrotters game, and has uncovered more smoking guns than Miss Marple.

It's an important development, but hardly a "slam dunk." More like another brick in the wall.
 
Well, I'm not sure an article based on anonymous sources, that everyone involved with denies (which, granted, you'd expect them to), and that legal experts are divided on whether is a crime at all, is necessarily a "slam dunk". What, exactly, makes it a "slam dunk"? It's slam dunk what?

But OK. The newest slam dunk, since the "Trump shouting that someone should fire Mueller is slam dunk obstruction" slam dunk. This case has had more supposed "slam dunks" than a Harlem Globetrotters game, and has uncovered more smoking guns than Miss Marple.

It's an important development, but hardly a "slam dunk." More like another brick in the wall.




All I’ve said is obstruction. That’s a slam dunk.

You must be confusing me with all your Resistance friends.
 
All I’ve said is obstruction. That’s a slam dunk.

You must be confusing me with all your Resistance friends.

But it's not a slam dunk. How can it be a slam dunk when legal experts are divided on whether the President can even be charged with obstruction under these facts (and actually most think he can't), and it's not even been proven this occurred in the first place?

And goodness gracious. While I have many friends who, like me, don't support Trump and want to see him out of office, I don't think any of them are members of the "Resistance". They're all sensible.
 
Last edited:
But you keep telling us what your Resistance friends are telling you — that they’re going to throw themselves off a bridge if Mueller doesn’t personally slap handcuffs on Trump himself.

What I’m telling you is that it’s been a slam dunk since he cornered Comey in the White House and pressured him to drop the Flynn investigation, and then fired him when he didn’t.

Everything else has fallen neatly into place.
 
Well, to use your example, Trump pressuring Comey to drop the Flynn investigation is not slam dunk obstruction. It could be obstruction. The President is the head of the executive branch and there's nothing illegal with him expressing his preference, even forcefully, on which cases get priority. That would only be obstruction if it could be proven Trump was pressuring Comey for a corrupt purpose. And Trump thinking the Russia investigation is a waste of time and resources is not a corrupt purpose. Trump thinking Flynn is innocent is not a corrupt purpose. You'd have to prove corrupt intent, and where's the proof of that? You''d need to first prove the existence of some kind of conspiracy, then prove that Trump tried to pressure Comey to keep the conspiracy hidden. If you don't have that proof, then it's not a slam dunk. That's why it will be hard to get Trump on obstruction without also proving the existence of a conspiracy. I'm not saying Trump's intent wasn't corrupt, I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk that it was.

As I said, I do think it's another brick in the wall. I think there's a good chance that Mueller has already concluded that Trump has tried to obstruct justice and is building his case...even if he necessarily can't make the case stick legally (he probably can't...too many issues involving executive power), and wouldn't try to indict the President even if he could. But legally, speaking, no, it's far, far from a slam dunk.

Now this could all well very end up in front of the House for impeachment proceedings, however. Which after all is where the Constitution intendeds things like this to end up.

I will say this about slam dunks....the case will have to be a slam dunk, with rock solid evidence, and a solid legal theory, against the President for there to be any chance he'd be removed from office.
 
Last edited:
The charge and the case for obstruction of justice are slam dunks. We only know what’s public. There’s likely, probably, almost certainly much more.

What Congress decides to do with this depends upon thv November elections. Barring black swan events.
 
I listened to an interview w Amy Siskind (on wnyc-am the Midday show) this past Tues. Her new book is called "The List: a Week by Week Reckoning...." - of Trumps actions to undermine democracy. It's actually taken (with some additions?) from her literal internet list of the same [The Weekly List]. I just looked it up.

She was inspired by someone who said to keep a list of big and subtle changes in the government by Trump and his minions so that you could remember.

Anyway I'm usually doing stuff as I listen to the radio so I didn't get the whole thing clearly on one particular I'll mention.

First though, she believes Mueller has a lot more he's not yet talking about ("like an iceberg"- most of it is hidden under the water) as he and team continue to investigate.

The other thing was bout hoping some one will tie together bits and pieces of voting problems that have only been reported locally in affected districts across the country for a possibly more ominous overview re:hacking of the 2016 presidential election.

She mentioned something about 70,000 affected black voters in one of the crucial Midwestern states but I didn't catch what it was. I think she mentioned something else about another group. These both went on if I heard her correctly in only Democratic and not Republican districts.
 
The real question facing America in 2018 is whether or not it’s ethical to watch the new Roseanne.

Has anyone seen it? I'm kind of curious. If only Roseanne's voice wasn't so damn braying.
 
I've seen it. Only one of the two episodes available made any reference to Trump. When it did, it went in hard and made a distracting plot point out of it, but everything Roseanne herself claimed for Trump was immediately torn down by her sister. Both sides were satirized.

It was a bit wearying though. I was tired of familial strife over politics within 24 hours of the election. I'm completely beyond done with it now.
 
I haven't seen it, don't have time or energy for much tv at all. But she was on the phone this morning on GMA and said that she has known Trump for years, and that he has done many things for her. That made me curious as to what those were.

I guess the whole premise of the new show is that her sister Jackie has opposite views. She was in a scene they showed , wearing a pink pussy hat and a nasty woman shirt.

Also GMA did a whole segment based on Roseanne's grandson and the fact that he likes to dress in feminine clothing. And how her character responds well to it rather than shaming him for it.
 
I saw it. My family used to watch the original series, so I caught it when my mom tuned in.

I didn't really find it laugh out loud funny, and I think the first episode especially felt really off, because everyone was settling back into their roles and the line delivery just felt really odd. But there were a few amusing lines at times, and I did like seeing the cast together again. I think there could be potential in exploring the issues faced by families who were so split in this last election, so who knows if and how the show will continue to explore that.

But I totally get people being turned off by Roseanne's recent political views, especially since she also seems to buy into a lot of the crazy conspiracy BS about things like Pizzagate and whatnot as well.

For me, I find Roseanne's political shift especially depressing because one of the things I really liked about the original series was that it was nice to see a working class Midwestern family like mine whose political beliefs I, and by extension, my family, could relate to. It was nice to have a show that didn't traffic in the assumptions and stereotypes about how conservative "middle America" is and whatnot. And I don't know about Roseanne the person's political history, but the Roseanne character, in the original series, was the sort who could sniff out somebody's bullshit right away. She would've seen through Trump's crap so quickly, and would've been especially horrified by the attitudes about women and minorities that he spouted, and which his administration supported.

So to see her all gung-ho about Trump, and endorsing his worldview, is just...so bizarre. And sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom