Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hanslanda]

A bit late to the party, but I think the optimal candidate is the skinny one because he's more difficult to hit with bullets.

The overweight fellow may have bludgeoning resistance, but that's just not something you can bank on with political assassinations. We're not in Rome anymore.

If we ever decide to do the sane and rational thing and decide our presidents through nude gladiatorial combat, being fat will be a great boon to your odds.

I've been promoting this idea vociferously for a decade now, along with my "we need to release GMO parthenogenic velociraptors (real ones, they're small) into the wild with an innate desire to eat humans because it will solve a whole slew of societal problems" political theory.

[Folly]

Well, BuzzFeed has reported that Trump directed Cohen to lie to congress about the Moscow Tower Project. They claim to have a credible source.
Of course, until this source is actually verified it's all just hearsay. But there's already talk that this could finally be the smoking gun that constitutes an impeachable offense.

[Telgin]

We'll see if it's true, but as usual I won't hold my breath that Trump suffers consequences for it.  For one thing, is it actually illegal for someone to tell someone else to lie to congress?  It's absolutely underhanded, but is it illegal?  For whoever lied, of course, but Trump didn't lie under oath himself.

Of course, it could still be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment, but I expect serious lawyering and logic jumping through hoops.

[MorleyDev]

Isn't learning about underhanded tactics from his 'side' and then paying to silence people and keep it covered up what Nixon faced impeachment over? (Whether he knew about the tactics beforehand being officially unknown).

[nenjin]

My experience in dealing with high level tech outfits, from the IT staff to project managers to actually owners.....the illusion of competency just because their company is successful is a false one.

[smjjames]

Isn't learning about underhanded tactics from his 'side' and then paying to silence people and keep it covered up what Nixon faced impeachment over? (Whether he knew about the tactics beforehand being officially unknown).

That was part of it I believe, yes.

Also, it's hearsay because other news outlets haven't been able to corroborate it yet. However, it sounds like a rare case of a leak from the Mueller team, or at least people associated with the Mueller team, so, it's only going to get corroborated when the report gets released.

Also, the last line of this article made me think of DF, at some point, he's going to dig too deep, hit adamantine, and release the !!!FUN!!!. Which, would be really bad for the country.

[Trekkin]

Yeah, here's Article I of Nixon's impeachment:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

So...yeah, this is impeachable conduct if proven.

[Frumple]

I mean, not just impeachable. Criminal, too.

[Trekkin]

I mean, not just impeachable. Criminal, too.

It is, to be sure, but impeachability's the more immediately relevant standard given the impossibility of indicting a sitting president.

I notice also that nobody -- not Giuliani, not Fox News, not Sanders, not Conway, nobody -- has said these allegations are false. They call Cohen a liar and Buzzfeed untrustworthy and rant about how the premise is ridiculous, but they never actually go on the record as saying this did not happen as far as I'm aware.

[Folly]

I notice also that nobody -- not Giuliani, not Fox News, not Sanders, not Conway, nobody -- has said these allegations are false. They call Cohen a liar and Buzzfeed untrustworthy and rant about how the premise is ridiculous, but they never actually go on the record as saying this did not happen as far as I'm aware.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-01-18/the-latest-trump-claims-cohen-lying-to-reduce-jail-time

Any suggestion— from any source— that the President counseled Michael Cohen to lie is categorically false.

The first impulse from these parties seems to be discrediting any allegations, rather than actually denying them. This is quite practical really considering that most allegations against Trump turn out to be true.
Giuliani is flat out denying it now, though I don't believe he has yet explained how he can be so certain about events that transpired before he was associated with Trump.

[Trekkin]

I notice also that nobody -- not Giuliani, not Fox News, not Sanders, not Conway, nobody -- has said these allegations are false. They call Cohen a liar and Buzzfeed untrustworthy and rant about how the premise is ridiculous, but they never actually go on the record as saying this did not happen as far as I'm aware.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-01-18/the-latest-trump-claims-cohen-lying-to-reduce-jail-time

Any suggestion— from any source— that the President counseled Michael Cohen to lie is categorically false.

The first impulse from these parties seems to be discrediting any allegations, rather than actually denying them. This is quite practical really considering that most allegations against Trump turn out to be true.
Giuliani is flat out denying it now, though I don't believe he has yet explained how he can be so certain about events that transpired before he was associated with Trump.

Well, mea culpa, albeit only by nine minutes.

[Starver]

"[...] but here's some nebulous promises [...] that I have no intention of keeping" - which most candidates would have recognized),

I wonder, then, who gave promises he had no intention of keeping (probably because he never anticipated winning) but is now unable to actively forget about or do?

[Frumple]

I mean, not just impeachable. Criminal, too.

It is, to be sure, but impeachability's the more immediately relevant standard given the impossibility of indicting a sitting president.

The untested and pretty certainly untrue "impossibility" that was pulled out of the ass of Nixon, who subsequently didn't have the balls (or had enough brains to not try) to go through with it. That was kinda' pissed on by the republican treatment of clinton, t'boot.

Given the state of the GOP I'd say it's relatively more likely we see indictment before we see impeachment.* There's sod all chance they go through with the latter even if criminal charges are landed, but there's plenty chance someone else (states, house investigations) digs up the reproductive fortitude to go through with the former and the SCOTUS lets it happen.

* Though unfortunately more likely than both we end up stuck with the shitgibbon until the sitting part goes away in 2020/2021, whereupon he promptly (as legal proceedings go) gets buried in criminal charges.

[PTTG??]

Rudy Giuliani is already neck-deep in conspiracy. He's got nothing to lose by lying again. ("No such thing is Double Perjury!")

[Max™]

I guarantee if Trump came on tv tomorrow saying Putin is his best friend and totally helped him beat Clinton in exchange for Crimea but it was totally ok because buttery males, the GOP won't do shit, and his supporters will act like it was a good thing.