Trump's Impeachment may actually fuck Elizabeth Warren the most

Author: Imabench

Posts

Total: 154
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah.
Yes it is a dream of rational, logical common sense dreamers  ---imagine--  he is going to prison along with cohorts.

IMAGINE all of the corrupt and spiritual immorals,  paying their dues in fair and justly proportion way.

It isnt hard to do, unless, you have a bird-brain and lack access to empathetic centers.

..."You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us,and the world will live as one."...sung to J. Lennon tune


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
 The dream of a Globo-Fascist state and state-controlled media is over thanks to the internet.

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
This has nothing to do with the legality of impeding the Mueller investigation, because Trump was not impeached for anything related to the Mueller investigation. Impeachment was declared to be nonjusticiable in US v Nixon, matters outside of impeachment are not.

Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...

Nor did he claim any possible impeachable offense that was obstructed from investigation.

Like, He could have claimed "Trump might have colluded with Russia but he obstructed my investigation"

Instead, he said "No Collusion"
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
.....he said "No Collusion"
Rational, logical,  common sense adults, in the know, know that Rick Gates{ charged } via  Paul  Mafort{ charged, indicted and inprison } colluded with the russians to interfer in the 2016 elections via Ukraine.

Again, Mueller just felt Trump was beyond his abilities to charge must less convict and handed the ball of to other state law systems and congress to take action.  I forget his exact comments.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Now I don't know why Mueller thought his job was to uncover a crime considering the Special Counsel simply needed to find impeachable offenses, not crimes. Mueller could have presented Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power as impeachable offenses 2 years ago and saved us a lot of time and bullshit.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
......Now I don't know why......
Nor do I do know  ---or so its been reported on MSNBC--   Paul Manifort ergo his aid Rick Gates, colluded with Russaians over 2016 via Ukraine.

Nor do I know why Muleller did not, however,  did Paul Manifort har ties to Trumpster  --duh yeah--- yet apparrently, not enough to convince Mueller of  a crime by Trump.

We all know Trump is an immoral, crooked, psychopathic liar.  We also know that his cult followers will never concede such, even after he is imprison, and that is again, because of their ego blocking-out truth. 



ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

Mueller’s goal was to find Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign so that Trump could be impeached and removed from office. Mueller however stated that there was no collusion and he couldn’t find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and hence, there was no case at all for any criminal proceedings against the President nor impeachable offenses.


Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
Hey, merry christmas. Sorry, I was going to respond to you much sooner, but I've been having a whole bunch of.... technical difficulties. They have now been resolved.

A living wage is a minimum amount of income needed to provide a worker with basic necessities, such that they can live a basic life without government subsidies. It does not literally mean "I need x income or I cannot survive" which would be a subsistence wage. The idea is to lift people out of the feedback loop of poverty.
We've been increasing the minimum wage for decades, and millions of Americans are still living in poverty. We've got to find out what people are doing with all that extra money they get, and why.

Apart from this, there have you considered that a living wage is typically calculated based upon a 40? hour work week. However it is likely that a person who is earning a poverty wage must work more than that (which of course negatively impacts their life and is a part of the feedback loop).
Wasn't aware of that.

I think people need to take a look at the kind of work they're doing. If you're working 40 hours a week behind a cash register, you can't expect to make that much money to begin with, but if you're working 40 hours a week as a doctor, nurse, electrician, plumber, scientist, police, janitor, military, or whatever, you can easily get out of poverty and move up the corporate ladder. Right now, I'm trying to get into a job working for a bank, office, tech company, news company, or an insurance company, all of which pay far more than the minimum wage.

It's getting ridiculous that people are wanting more and more money doing their cheap cash register jobs, and not looking for ways to get into jobs that already pay better.

Raising the minimum wage just means more and more businesses are going to be finding ways to get around it, such as looking for more immigrants to hire under the table or whatever, thus negatively impacting even more lives, and contributing even more to that feedback loop you talked out.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Mueller’s goal was to find Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign so that Trump could be impeached and removed from office. Mueller however stated that there was no collusion and he couldn’t find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and hence, there was no case at all for any criminal proceedings against the President nor impeachable offenses.
You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachment

dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
We've been increasing the minimum wage for decades, and millions of Americans are still living in poverty. We've got to find out what people are doing with all that extra money they get, and why.
I mean not really? The minimum wage has gone up but the purchasing power hasn't gone up. In fact, it's gone down. If the purchasing power has gone down, people aren't getting "extra money" because everything is comparatively more expensive.

I think people need to take a look at the kind of work they're doing. If you're working 40 hours a week behind a cash register, you can't expect to make that much money to begin with, but if you're working 40 hours a week as a doctor, nurse, electrician, plumber, scientist, police, janitor, military, or whatever, you can easily get out of poverty and move up the corporate ladder. Right now, I'm trying to get into a job working for a bank, office, tech company, news company, or an insurance company, all of which pay far more than the minimum wage.

It's getting ridiculous that people are wanting more and more money doing their cheap cash register jobs, and not looking for ways to get into jobs that already pay better.
The thing is, not everyone has equal opportunity to get the prerequisite training/education for higher paying jobs. If you're born into an unstable family where you're struggling to survive from day one, and you have to work a 40 hour minimum wage job just to scrape by, you probably don't have the time or the financial means to fund your training/education regardless of the desire for it.

Raising the minimum wage just means more and more businesses are going to be finding ways to get around it, such as looking for more immigrants to hire under the table or whatever, thus negatively impacting even more lives, and contributing even more to that feedback loop you talked out.
There will, of course be negatives to minimum wage increases. However there will also be positives. I don't think you can objectively evaluate the impacts of a nation wide minimum wage increase before it's actually occurred
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachment

Clearly he didn’t have enough evidence, hence Trump can’t be convicted.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
It wasn't about sufficiency of evidence. It is known that he did those things and ordered those things and there is sufficient evidence to show so. It's about to what extent do those acts constitute crimes and whether he can be impeached for those acts, which is purely decided by the house and subsequently the senate

Of course legalities aside, such behaviour is obviously corrupt, so why do you defend him for such behaviour?

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
It wasn't about sufficiency of evidence.
It is though. Mueller specifically said that he did not have sufficient evidence to convict the President nor present an impeachable offense.


It is known that he did those things and ordered those things and there is sufficient evidence to show so. It's about to what extent do those acts constitute crimes and whether he can be impeached for those acts, which is purely decided by the house and subsequently the senate
That is false. You’re innocent until proven guilty. If there’s not sufficient evidence there is no case to be made and hence there is no crime. In a court of law the evidence wouldn’t hold up so why would it in the Senate.


Of course legalities aside, such behaviour is obviously corrupt, so why do you defend him for such behaviour?
That’s opinion. In my opinion there’s a massive double standard especially towards what the Clintons and Obamas did. Without equality under the law why would I criticize someone for something when another did the same thing and got away with it. It’s a precedent I guess is what I’m trying to say.

dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
It is though. Mueller specifically said that he did not have sufficient evidence to convict the President nor present an impeachable offense.
This is extremely wrong. I'm unsure if you're just rewording it inaccurately or you're just unaware of the accurate facts. Perhaps you could present a line from the report or his testimony to support your case? 

In terms of conviction, Mueller made it extremely clear that because of the previous OLC opinion, he could not convict the President for anything. Conviction was never on the table for either collusion or obstruction.

In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.

That’s opinion. In my opinion there’s a massive double standard especially towards what the Clintons and Obamas did. Without equality under the law why would I criticize someone for something when another did the same thing and got away with it. It’s a precedent I guess is what I’m trying to say.
What did the Clintons and the Obamas do?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.

Actually he did not leave anything for Congress to determine explicitly because he listed zero impeachable offenses for Congress to agree or disagree with. Instead, Congress was left with a bunch of Orangemanbad opinions and hypotheticals to sift through to decide to impeach on Abuse of Power ultimately.

Mueller could have saved 2 years of bullshit by citing Abuse of Power as an impeachable offense.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
To be clear, Mueller listed the offenses and congress decides on whether or not those offenses are impeachable. Your statement that he listed 0 impeachable offenses make no sense whatsoever because Mueller isn't the one to decide whether an act is impeachable or not.

That, and what Trump was impeached for had nothing to do with the Mueller report in any case



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Sure he is. We already have the template with the Starr report. Special counsel lists impeachable offenses, then Congress decides whether or not to impeach based on those listed offenses. Congress isn't a detective agency. That's probably why Congress settled on Abuse of Power since Mueller fucked them so badly by giving them nothing to consider impeachable explicitly. Instead, Congress had to pull out the Rosetta stone and decipher the hieroglyphics. 

They came up with Abuse of Power. Nice translation.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.

With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. [...] The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. Mueller Report, vol. II, p.8

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.

So you agree Mueller fucked Congres by giving them Hieroglyphics with no translation stone?

I mean, even Google Translate coulda done a better job to come up with "Abuse of Power" as a translation.

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
This is extremely wrong. I'm unsure if you're just rewording it inaccurately or you're just unaware of the accurate facts. Perhaps you could present a line from the report or his testimony to support your case? 

In terms of conviction, Mueller made it extremely clear that because of the previous OLC opinion, he could not convict the President for anything. Conviction was never on the table for either collusion or obstruction.

In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.
Mueller said he “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

So that gets rid of collusion which was the starting point of the whole investigation.


—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Now let’s go to obstruction. It is Trump’s constitutional right to fire any member of the executive branch. Regardless Mueller did not come to a conclusion whether there was obstruction or not. He left it to his supervisors Rod Rosenstein and William Barr who both stated there was not enough evidence to warrant an obstruction claim. As for the OLC claim, the Special Counsel has the power to reccomend impeachable offenses to Congress, which Bob Mueller chose not to do. The OLC furthermore does not reign supreme over the Supreme Court where a battle could have been taken, yet Bob Mueller chose not to do so. He didn’t reccomend charges to Congress nor fight the OLC opinion, why? There’s only one reasonable explanation: he didn’t have sufficient evidence to warrant an obstruction of justice which was corroborated by Rosenstein and Barr, the top lawyers in the nation.

What did the Clintons and Obama’s do?
Well let’s see. Bill Clinton committed perjury but was set free. One could argue he abused his power to get the famous sexual relation. Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC so she would win against Bernie. Hillary And the DNC also funded the infamous Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.


Eric Holder during Fast and Furious refused to give documents to Republicans after Obama asserted executive privilege. The same “obstruction” that Democrats are impeaching Trump for. It’s a sham and double standard. Oh I almost forgot, Lois Lerner purposefully targeting Conservative organizations. Keep in mind also that the whole wiretapping thing happened under the Obama administration.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.

I think you’re misunderstanding. Mueller had the power to reccomend impeachable offenses per precedent, but he chose not to do so. Instead he left it to his supervisors who being the top lawyers in the nation said nothing warrants the charge. Regardless, even if the question was open ended towards Congress, it’s been almost a year since the report was released. Why did they not impeach him then? Simple: there was no case to be made,
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Once again, the impeachment had nothing to do with the Mueller report. Congress derived the abuse of power article from his actions in the Ukraine scandal
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
A double waste of tax funds then.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Now let’s go to obstruction. It is Trump’s constitutional right to fire any member of the executive branch. Regardless Mueller did not come to a conclusion whether there was obstruction or not. He left it to his supervisors Rod Rosenstein and William Barr who both stated there was not enough evidence to warrant an obstruction claim. As for the OLC claim, the Special Counsel has the power to reccomend impeachable offenses to Congress, which Bob Mueller chose not to do. The OLC furthermore does not reign supreme over the Supreme Court where a battle could have been taken, yet Bob Mueller chose not to do so. He didn’t reccomend charges to Congress nor fight the OLC opinion, why? There’s only one reasonable explanation: he didn’t have sufficient evidence to warrant an obstruction of justice which was corroborated by Rosenstein and Barr, the top lawyers in the nation.
The report was handed to Barr as he is the head of the justice department which oversaw the investigation. However the determination of the actions in the report were left to congress, as was made clear in the report itself because congress has the sole responsibilities of impeachment and removal. As for the OLC opinion, we don't know why Mueller did or did not do anything, but it was made clear from the report that impeachment is a measure against presidential corruptive behaviour.

Well let’s see. Bill Clinton committed perjury but was set free. One could argue he abused his power to get the famous sexual relation. Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC so she would win against Bernie. Hillary And the DNC also funded the infamous Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.


Eric Holder during Fast and Furious refused to give documents to Republicans after Obama asserted executive privilege. The same “obstruction” that Democrats are impeaching Trump for. It’s a sham and double standard. Oh I almost forgot, Lois Lerner purposefully targeting Conservative organizations. Keep in mind also that the whole wiretapping thing happened under the Obama administration.
Right so in terms of presidents and their corrupt behaviour, one was Clinton who perjured himself over a blowjob and was subsequently impeached for it, and the other was Obama, who asserted privilege for Holder in one instance.

Even if you were to equivalate the 3 instances, recognizing that that there is a double standard should not also prevent you from recognizing corrupt behaviour from Trump.

Regardless, even if the question was open ended towards Congress, it’s been almost a year since the report was released. Why did they not impeach him then? Simple: there was no case to be made,
Well we know there is a case to be made, because there were listed instances of obstructive behaviour. It's probably just because the case isn't strong enough without the underlying crime to appease much of the public and garner that critical public support.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Well we know there is a case to be made, because there were listed instances of obstructive behaviour. It's probably just because the case isn't strong enough without the underlying crime to appease much of the public and garner that critical public support.

We know the case is weaker than "Abuse of Power"
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.

Technically, the criminal acts were the 3 FISA reauthorizations without revealing the Dossier was fake pee.

64 days later

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Imabench
Trump Impeachment could end up dooming Warrens future in politics the most. 
Once again, your political instincts seems to have been right.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
impeachment didn't doom warren. Warren acting like typical backroom dealing politician doomed warren. Her candidacy was based on her being  progressive and honest. When she started being slimy she destroyed her campaign.