What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

So, we know Trump has his own Twitter account where he tweets out all this ridiculous stuff. Does he also use the @POTUS account? Why does he get two? Why would he want two? He doesn't seem to be the type to keep them straight. Reading the @POTUS one, it's just more of the same stuff.

Also, I'm totally bummed that someone who I follow, who I maaaaaaaay have a bit of an unhealthy celebrity-type of crush on, now follows him on Twitter. Has me a bit out of sorts.
 
Scarlet said:
So, we know Trump has his own Twitter account where he tweets out all this ridiculous stuff. Does he also use the @POTUS account? Why does he get two? Why would he want two? He doesn't seem to be the type to keep them straight. Reading the @POTUS one, it's just more of the same stuff.

Also, I'm totally bummed that someone who I follow, who I maaaaaaaay have a bit of an unhealthy celebrity-type of crush on, now follows him on Twitter. Has me a bit out of sorts.
Click to expand...
They could be following for humor? It's like a car crash?
 
Scarlet said:
So, we know Trump has his own Twitter account where he tweets out all this ridiculous stuff. Does he also use the @POTUS account? Why does he get two? Why would he want two? He doesn't seem to be the type to keep them straight. Reading the @POTUS one, it's just more of the same stuff.

Also, I'm totally bummed that someone who I follow, who I maaaaaaaay have a bit of an unhealthy celebrity-type of crush on, now follows him on Twitter. Has me a bit out of sorts.
Click to expand...

I follow him for the comedy and trolling.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Kepler said:
My concerns come down to this: I don't find this a ridiculous theory, and that is a real problem.
Click to expand...

My gf read a joke article about how Trump said his impeachment would get better ratings than any other impeachment...and it took me 5 minutes to figure out it was a joke because he would totally say that!
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

CNN had a great recap of town halls tonight. In one, an older woman asked why we could impeach bill over a b l o w j o b but that trump could invite Russians into the oval.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Hmmm...
Click to expand...

I get what Dershowitz is saying but I think he is missing the point. While the act itself is not illegal (he has the right to fire someone) the reasoning behind the act is a mitigating circumstance as to whether it obstructed justice. His action definitely put a hamper on the ongoing investigation and his conflict of interests means he should not be allowed to make said decision. It isnt like Comey is looking into just some random person in the administration, he was looking into Trump and his hand picked aides. Trump should be recused from the decision just like a judge would be if he had a conflict of interest in a case.

Dershowitz knows better than that. The mere appearance of impropriety is bad enough and in this case that standard is a vast understatement. The person making the decision should be divorced from the situation.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Handyman said:
I get what Dershowitz is saying but I think he is missing the point. While the act itself is not illegal (he has the right to fire someone) the reasoning behind the act is a mitigating circumstance as to whether it obstructed justice. His action definitely put a hamper on the ongoing investigation and his conflict of interests means he should not be allowed to make said decision. It isnt like Comey is looking into just some random person in the administration, he was looking into Trump and his hand picked aides. Trump should be recused from the decision just like a judge would be if he had a conflict of interest in a case.

Dershowitz knows better than that. The mere appearance of impropriety is bad enough and in this case that standard is a vast understatement. The person making the decision should be divorced from the situation.
Click to expand...

This. And now the alleged "tapes" comment.....could be interpreted as intimidation....

This is bad. Really bad. Personally, I'm for full impeachment.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
CNN had a great recap of town halls tonight. In one, an older woman asked why we could impeach bill over a b l o w j o b but that trump could invite Russians into the oval.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, he was not impeached for the bolwjob but for lying about it under oath. It was idiocy, but Bill did make his own bed on that one.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

burd said:
If I remember correctly, he was not impeached for the bolwjob but for lying about it under oath. It was idiocy, but Bill did make his own bed on that one.
Click to expand...

Correct. It was for lying under oath. I don't care that he had an affair. I cared that he lied about it under oath.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Brenthoven said:
Correct. It was for lying under oath. I don't care that he had an affair. I cared that he lied about it under oath.
Click to expand...

Senator Russ Feingold voted to impeach, and his 1999 closed door impeachment statement is a good read. I'd provide the link here, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I just don't know how to do it.

He was a good liberal who was not only willing to cross the aisle to sponsor needed legislation but principled enough to vote against the party line on a hugely important issue if he felt the law and the facts required it. How we Wiscovites traded him for Johnson is absolutely beyond me.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Clinton lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones case. Clinton then made the public statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (meaning Lewinski) and subsequently told Congress that statement was true. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress and Obstruction of Justice. The latter charge consisting of both the crime itself, lying to Congress, COUPLED with the intent to mislead Congress to prevent justice being served upon him. 50 Senators voted guilty on the obstruction charge. The remaining mostly argued that while Clinton was perhaps technically guilty, his actions did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" required by the Constitution to remove a President from office.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Clinton lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones case. Clinton then made the public statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (meaning Lewinski) and subsequently told Congress that statement was true. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress and Obstruction of Justice. The latter charge consisting of both the crime itself, lying to Congress, COUPLED with the intent to mislead Congress to prevent justice being served upon him. 50 Senators voted guilty on the obstruction charge. The remaining mostly argued that while Clinton was perhaps technically guilty, his actions did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" required by the Constitution to remove a President from office.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was not just the lie about Lewinski but also other efforts to obstruct. To some extent, Bill's false declaration about having "sex with that woman" helped to seal HRC's fate so many years later. The LIAR label became permanently attached to the Clinton name at that point.
 
Brenthoven said:
This. And now the alleged "tapes" comment.....could be interpreted as intimidation....

This is bad. Really bad. Personally, I'm for full impeachment.
Click to expand...

Where is the high crime and misdemeanor? You may not like the guy, but incompetency is not grounds for impeachment.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Brenthoven said:
Correct. It was for lying under oath. I don't care that he had an affair. I cared that he lied about it under oath.
Click to expand...

Didn't that all stem from Bill trying to play super lawyer and say that his interpretation of the definition caused him to answer the way he did?
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

joecct said:
Where is the high crime and misdemeanor? You may not like the guy, but incompetency is not grounds for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Obstruction of justice is. Money laundering is. And, of course, treason is.

It's early yet.
 
Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Handyman said:
I get what Dershowitz is saying but I think he is missing the point. While the act itself is not illegal (he has the right to fire someone) the reasoning behind the act is a mitigating circumstance as to whether it obstructed justice. His action definitely put a hamper on the ongoing investigation and his conflict of interests means he should not be allowed to make said decision. It isnt like Comey is looking into just some random person in the administration, he was looking into Trump and his hand picked aides. Trump should be recused from the decision just like a judge would be if he had a conflict of interest in a case.

Dershowitz knows better than that. The mere appearance of impropriety is bad enough and in this case that standard is a vast understatement. The person making the decision should be divorced from the situation.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A.) There's no evidence Comey's firing hampered the investigation in any way, as testified to before Congress by Andrew McCabe. (In fact it seems probable to have had the opposite effect.) B.) If we're to believe Grassley and Feinstein, Comey confirmed that Trump himself isn't the target of any investigation in a classified briefing. C.) The opinion that Trump shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to fire Comey is just that, an opinion, and it has no basis in law. Trump unequivocally had the power granted to the President to remove Comey or anybody else that serves "at the pleasure of the President." The President is not like a federal judge at all, and is not required to recuse himself from any decision ever, for reasons that should be obvious.

Dershowitz correctly says that intent is not enough. There must be an illegal action to go with it. If in the Godfather, on the way to the cornfield to whack Paulie Gatto, they had been in a car accident and Paulie was killed, Clemenza would not be guilty of anything*, even though he intended to kill Gatto minutes later. The worst that could happen is that his cannoli might be ruined.

* Well, ok... conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, but since Coppola didn't film that part, there's no evidence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top