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 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it! :eek:
Click to expand...

That's funny.

It is probably seen as strictly theoretical there. Who in their right mind would want to roll in the hay with a 'sotan, man or woman, unless they were obligated to?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

burd said:
That's why criminal statutes have elements.

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress . . . .


Under this particular obstruction statute (U.S.C. section 1505), Trump may have the power, but if he exercises that power "corruptly," then it appears his actions may still fall within the statute. I'm sure there is case law clarifying that to some extent.
Click to expand...

Right, corruptly would be the key. It seems to me that would come into play if they get something on a Trump minion and then can show that Trump knew or strongly suspected something was up. Otherwise, where is it going?

As it stands, Trump was told he wasn't under investigation. In reference to another matter, Comey pointed out that if they had something on a Trump minion, the immediate question would arise as to what Trump knew and when. So we might conclude that as of Comey's tenure, they had nothing on any Trump minion, because if they did, Trump would automatically come under investigation to answer that question.

How is that?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Aqua Buddha is on CNN right now polishing Trump's knob and pushing the "total vindication" BS. Jesus.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it! :eek:
Click to expand...

Maryland statute imposes a 10 dollar penalty for adultery. That's making a statement about the sanctity of marriage right there. It's worth half the price of an ironic t-shirt.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Wisko McBadgerton said:
How is that?
Click to expand...

Dumb! :D Appreciate the game you're playing although mookie always did it with a little better humor and you can't even approach the level of insanity that Flaggy brings, but your premise is absurd. If Trump is sending a message to law enforcement that their jobs rely on not investigating his hires for any reason, he's obstructing justice. He doesn't need to know what specific crimes they're up to. That would give a blank check to anybody working for Trump to pretty much do whatever they wanted. Sorta how the Mafia used to work, isn't it?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Rover said:
Sorta how the Mafia used to work, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Nice legs you got there. I hope nothing happens to them.

What, what? I'm just talking about my hopes -- those can't be litigated!
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Kepler said:
Maryland statute imposes a 10 dollar penalty for adultery. That's making a statement about the sanctity of marriage right there. It's worth half the price of an ironic t-shirt.
Click to expand...

When was that law written? It'd be interesting to index it for inflation, as inaccurate as it would likely be from an era that long ago.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Right, corruptly would be the key. It seems to me that would come into play if they get something on a Trump minion and then can show that Trump knew or strongly suspected something was up. Otherwise, where is it going?

As it stands, Trump was told he wasn't under investigation. In reference to another matter, Comey pointed out that if they had something on a Trump minion, the immediate question would arise as to what Trump knew and when. So we might conclude that as of Comey's tenure, they had nothing on any Trump minion, because if they did, Trump would automatically come under investigation to answer that question.

How is that?
Click to expand...

Corruptly is not the only key, any or all of the items, each separated by the commas, are key. It doesn't even matter if trump wasn't under investigation. Most people who are guilty of obstruction are not the ones who committed the physical crime. Since trump is stupid enough to believe his own hype, he believed that firing the head of the FBI would end any investigation, or at the very least put a chilling effect on whoever was doing the actual legwork. That's why he fired Comey. He can't help himself. And that's obstruction. Quit trying to find ways to defend the indefensible.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

WeAreNDHockey said:
Corruptly is not the only key, any or all of the items, each separated by the commas, are key. It doesn't even matter if trump wasn't under investigation. Most people who are guilty of obstruction are not the ones who committed the physical crime. Since trump is stupid enough to believe his own hype, he believed that firing the head of the FBI would end any investigation, or at the very least put a chilling effect on whoever was doing the actual legwork. That's why he fired Comey. He can't help himself. And that's obstruction. Quit trying to find ways to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Don't say that. It's interesting to see how various parties will play out this scenario, or even how the two chambers might view it differently. (Voting for the impeachment process vs. finding guilt or innocence might set politicians to differing mindsets.)
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it! :eek:
Click to expand...

The tweak was to make the law more PC:

Subd. 2. Limitations. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section except on complaint of the husband or the wife, except when such husband or wife is insane lacks the mental capacity, nor after one year from the commission of the offense.
Click to expand...

edit: looks like the formatting didn't make it. "is insane" was changed to "lacks the mental capacity".

While amusing, it was probably just caught up in a general PCification of existing statutes.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Right, corruptly would be the key. It seems to me that would come into play if they get something on a Trump minion and then can show that Trump knew or strongly suspected something was up. Otherwise, where is it going?

As it stands, Trump was told he wasn't under investigation. In reference to another matter, Comey pointed out that if they had something on a Trump minion, the immediate question would arise as to what Trump knew and when. So we might conclude that as of Comey's tenure, they had nothing on any Trump minion, because if they did, Trump would automatically come under investigation to answer that question.

How is that?
Click to expand...
Not too good if you listened to the whole hearing carefully. Comey was extremely explicit when he explained each instance of when he said Trump was not under investigation and why he said it regarding specific situations. He was also very careful to point out to the President that even tho there was no current investigation, there may come an instance where he might become part of the investigation which would necessitate Comey then coming out to clarify that the situation had changed. This was something Comey testified he and assocs discussed when they tried to figure out whether they should come out to say he wasn't under investigation. The wisdom in the room was there was no guarantee he would not be under investigation at some point so nothing should be said. Comey also said he would elaborate when they were in closed session. He was also careful to say he had no knowledge of whether the President was currently under investigation now. If you took Comey at his word when listening to his testimony it seemed he was implying there was much more to be investigated and it may be too early to come to any conclusions.

Of course then we had the immediate attempts at character assassination from the legal mouthpiece and Trump saying things were said that weren't that if you listened to the actual hearing were like being in an alternate world.

True confessions- I was not so sure how I felt about Comey before the hearings started. I was not enamored with how he had handled the pre-election stuff because I didn't think it made a whole lot of sense. I came out of this finding him very credible and honest sounding, even down to the part where he admitted he could have handled things differently in some cases when the dif GOP folks questioned him.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

leswp1 said:
True confessions- I was not so sure how I felt about Comey before the hearings started. I was not enamored with how he had handled the pre-election stuff because I didn't think it made a whole lot of sense. I came out of this finding him very credible and honest sounding, even down to the part where he admitted he could have handled things differently in some cases when the dif GOP folks questioned him.
Click to expand...

I think the left was quick to vilify him because of the Hillary Clinton mess. I think his record shows him to be pretty much a long time federal prosecutor who conducted himself reasonably. That President Obama appointed him as head of the FBI early in his second term seems to indicate that one left leaning politician had no substantial issues with him. I honestly don't recall knowing or hearing much about him for the first couple of years of his term at the top of the FBI until the Clinton email story starting gathering steam. I think he seemed to handle himself well enough in the hearing last week and I know he is infinitely more credible than trump even on trump's best day.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Right, corruptly would be the key. It seems to me that would come into play if they get something on a Trump minion and then can show that Trump knew or strongly suspected something was up. Otherwise, where is it going?

As it stands, Trump was told he wasn't under investigation. In reference to another matter, Comey pointed out that if they had something on a Trump minion, the immediate question would arise as to what Trump knew and when. So we might conclude that as of Comey's tenure, they had nothing on any Trump minion, because if they did, Trump would automatically come under investigation to answer that question.

How is that?
Click to expand...

I'm sure all the facts will come before Mueller. As to the "corruptly" language, I only cited that to make the point that having the power to act does not necessarily mean the act cannot be criminal. Section 1505 is just one of the obstruction statutes, and it has many elements. It may be that 1505 is not even the one providing the basis for potential prosecution. But since there is no such thing as the common law of crimes, it's all about the statute, at least as to the question of whether a crime has been committed.

There are other grounds for removal, such as incapacity, I understand. Supersuckage is not enough, or he would be back to selling apartments by now.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

burd said:
That's funny.

It is probably seen as strictly theoretical there. Who in their right mind would want to roll in the hay with a 'sotan, man or woman, unless they were obligated to?
Click to expand...

Given how many godforsakes from the east and west move there every year....

:(
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

In today's news, Trump is taking credit for the opening of a coal mine that has been planned since 2013 and construction started last September.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

WeAreNDHockey said:
I think the left was quick to vilify him because of the Hillary Clinton mess. I think his record shows him to be pretty much a long time federal prosecutor who conducted himself reasonably. That President Obama appointed him as head of the FBI early in his second term seems to indicate that one left leaning politician had no substantial issues with him. I honestly don't recall knowing or hearing much about him for the first couple of years of his term at the top of the FBI until the Clinton email story starting gathering steam. I think he seemed to handle himself well enough in the hearing last week and I know he is infinitely more credible than trump even on trump's best day.
Click to expand...
Independent skeptic here. Things were really weird this election. I was busy and didn't get to hear what he actually said when the last set of hearings were on. When he was again asked why he did what he did for the Clinton emails this time I did hear the explanation. I may be gullible but his actual words seemed to make more sense that the coverage I heard of his explanations last time. After watching the debacle of creative analysis this time I will be less likely than ever to believe analysis- even from usually neutral sites. NPR did a fairly good job this time but there is no way a synopsis, no matter how concise and neutral, can convey the context of what is being said

French Rage said:
In today's news, Trump is taking credit for the opening of a coal mine that has been planned since 2013 and construction started last September.
Click to expand...
He is prescient. (along with all his other godly qualities)
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

nobody is under investigation, until they are under investigation
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

[Steps away for a bit]

[Comes back]

Oh Christ, when is this guy going to just perjure himself and rid us of his stupidity?

[Sulks back into the night]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top