*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4180 on: July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM »
Dear Rushy:
Proving someone did something is what the police and other investigators do.  This does not require a court of law in many cases.  Sometimes it requires a judge to approve further evidence gathering but that's it.

Of course, I suppose a TV could become sentient, grow legs, smash my window and escape.  But that seems less likely than someone broke into my home and stole it.


This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.
Then Trump should have used that money. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4181 on: July 27, 2019, 09:58:52 PM »
Dear Rushy:
Proving someone did something is what the police and other investigators do.  This does not require a court of law in many cases.  Sometimes it requires a judge to approve further evidence gathering but that's it.

Of course, I suppose a TV could become sentient, grow legs, smash my window and escape.  But that seems less likely than someone broke into my home and stole it.

No, proving something is not something investigators do. They acquire evidence in an effort to prove something. They themselves cannot prove a crime occurred.
Yes they can and do.

Quote
This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.
Then Trump should have used that money. 

So am I to assume your search for a Congressional act limiting Trump didn't turn up anything?
Oh there is no congressional act.  Did I say there was?  I said it would bite them in the ass later.  See the whole court ruling was to determine if the president, when he gets a "No" from congress, can bypass them and do whatever he was going to do anyway with money from another source.
This ruling says yes.  (So there is no congressional act prohibiting it)  Which is my point.  Because it's legal and has legal precident that it's ok to do, the next democratic president could do something similar and bypass a republican congress.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4182 on: July 27, 2019, 10:13:41 PM »
Dear Rushy:
Proving someone did something is what the police and other investigators do.  This does not require a court of law in many cases.  Sometimes it requires a judge to approve further evidence gathering but that's it.

Of course, I suppose a TV could become sentient, grow legs, smash my window and escape.  But that seems less likely than someone broke into my home and stole it.

No, proving something is not something investigators do. They acquire evidence in an effort to prove something. They themselves cannot prove a crime occurred.
Yes they can and do.

Quote
This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.
Then Trump should have used that money. 

So am I to assume your search for a Congressional act limiting Trump didn't turn up anything?
Oh there is no congressional act.  Did I say there was?  I said it would bite them in the ass later.  See the whole court ruling was to determine if the president, when he gets a "No" from congress, can bypass them and do whatever he was going to do anyway with money from another source.
This ruling says yes.  (So there is no congressional act prohibiting it)  Which is my point.  Because it's legal and has legal precident that it's ok to do, the next democratic president could do something similar and bypass a republican congress.

If trump truly believes in this wall, and is determined to build it without Americans paying for it, why not put up the funds for it himself? He has the money and is fully capable of generating more for his own profit... What is he waiting for?

God... You'd almost think there was some connection between real estate and immigration.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2019, 10:30:21 PM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4183 on: July 29, 2019, 10:11:03 AM »
@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?
Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4184 on: July 29, 2019, 10:20:03 AM »
This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.
Then Trump should have used that money. 

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms https://n.pr/2ZfiIXP

This is gonna bite Republicans in the ass later.  This means that there is now legal precident for a president to go against the ruling of congress when appropriating funds for projects so long as they declare a national emergency.
Oh there is no congressional act.  Did I say there was?  I said it would bite them in the ass later.  See the whole court ruling was to determine if the president, when he gets a "No" from congress, can bypass them and do whatever he was going to do anyway with money from another source.
This ruling says yes.  (So there is no congressional act prohibiting it)  Which is my point.  Because it's legal and has legal precident that it's ok to do, the next democratic president could do something similar and bypass a republican congress.
As long as the funds fall under the power of the Executive Branch, what is the problem?

Congress stated the funds were to go to the military.

The military has a sole purpose; that being, to protect the borders and citizens on the US.

The military has a sole Commander-in-Chief.

His name is Donald J. Trump.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 10:22:30 AM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4185 on: July 29, 2019, 10:34:07 AM »
This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.
Even if Mueller had been fired, that would not constitute obstruction of justice.

So, you are wrong.
Quote
You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything.
We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.
You are wrong again.

Ted Lieu asked him: "Were it not for the OLC opinion, you would have indicted the President (for obstruction)?
Mueller: (Essentially) Yes.
Mueller: (After the break) No.
LMMFAO!

Quote
The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.
Umm.... duh?  Look, I agree that no opinions were changed.  This was, as you said, an attempt to change opinions in the public opinions court, but no evidence is going to change the opinion of the Republicans who support him.  If the report (and Mr. Mueller) found that Trump had worked with Russia, helped steal e-mails, and lied about everything to win the election... he wouldn't lose a single vote.  Because that's what he's done: He has turned the republican party into the fanatical "Party of Trump".  Trump can, quite literally, do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.  None.  Well... if he took away guns then yes but that's about it.
Wrong again.
Personally, I think they should have let Mr. Mueller fade away and not subject him to what was basically hours of one side asking him questions they already knew the answer to and the other side having an internet rant about how wrong he is then asking a related question so they would look like they're actually asking him things instead of just yelling at him.
Actually, those questions cleared up quite a bit.

Why include the word, "exonerate," when there is no legal justification for its inclusion and no policy/procedure/promulgated rule within the DOJ outlining the use of the term?

According to Mueller, he included it due to the fact he was unsure if the Attorney General of the United States knew there was no such provision!

LMMFAO!

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4186 on: July 29, 2019, 10:38:19 AM »

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Oh?  Please, tell us which president was arrested or charged in committing a crime.
Lemme get this straight...

You stated Trump could murder me or rape my dead mother, and not be charged or arrested...

And when I point out to you the sheer hilarity of the statement you wrote, you want me to come back with support for the hilarious argument?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #4187 on: July 29, 2019, 11:14:38 AM »
Long story short: the legal status of whether or not a sitting POTUS can face criminal charges is unclear, and the DoJ's policy is not to indict sitting presidents.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

That said, I doubt they would just idly sit there and provide meaningless non-answers if they had good evidence of the meme-conspiracy.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4188 on: July 29, 2019, 01:12:56 PM »
@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?
Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

The confusing bit was when you stated the following (it sounded like you were arguing in favor of the bold section)



It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4189 on: July 29, 2019, 01:17:10 PM »
@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?
Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

The confusing bit was when you stated the following (it sounded like you were arguing in favor of the bold section)



It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.
Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4190 on: July 29, 2019, 01:44:14 PM »
Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.
When was that demonstrated to be false?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4191 on: July 29, 2019, 02:35:03 PM »
Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.
When was that demonstrated to be false?
A claim is demonstrated to be false when one does not provide evidence for that claim.

Lord Dave claimed Trump could murder me and rape my dead mother without being charged or arrested.

He provided no such evidence for that claim.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4192 on: July 29, 2019, 02:48:21 PM »
@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?
Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

The confusing bit was when you stated the following (it sounded like you were arguing in favor of the bold section)



It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.
Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.

I have a distinct feeling that if Trump (or any president) commited such a blatant, violent act, that they would be charged in some way or another.

As to whether or not a sitting president can be charged for less violent, less obvious crimes such as obstruction of justice, it appears that the Justice Department has an internal policy to NOT charge a sitting president. It is not constitutionally bound, and thus he can technically be charged as long as the justice department decides to do so.

In my mind the argument is concluded. A sitting president CAN be charged and prosecuted, technically, however a sitting president will NOT be charged and prosecuted until they are impeached or their term ends.

Here's my evidence to support this claim: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/641005331/can-the-sitting-president-of-the-united-states-be-indicted

It is all anecdotal nonetheless.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4193 on: July 29, 2019, 03:16:27 PM »
Here it is from the DoJ itself:
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000
Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:
op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4194 on: July 29, 2019, 03:21:36 PM »
Here it is from the DoJ itself:
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000
Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:
op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

That is essentially what I found at the NPR site, suggesting that since the president is the head of the executive branch, that if the president were prosecuted, they would be prosecuting him/her self - which would be unconstitutional.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4195 on: July 29, 2019, 03:29:29 PM »
That is essentially what I found at the NPR site...
I know.  I was just providing a link to the original source of the policy on the DoJ web site, not a second hand retelling of it.  Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4196 on: July 29, 2019, 07:46:48 PM »
"demonstrated" means someone proved it is false, not that no evidence has been put forth.  Lack of evidence is not evidence.

That being said, my assertion was, quite simply, a comment that the state of America and politics tells me that Trump would get away with it.

"fake news"
"Lies"
"A plot to unseat a duely elected president"
"Self defense"
"Deep state faked the footage."  <-This one is legit possible btw


Trump commands his followers with such ferocity that they'll swallow anything he gives them.  And the local law enforcement, even the FBI would not have a process for arresting a sitting president.  The DOJ, which is in the pockets of Trump, is not gonna change their position.  And the senate MAY impeach him, I'm not sure it would actually stick.

THAT is how much Trump is loved by his followers.  THAT is why I am afraid of Trump.  He is half a brain away from being a dictator.  His popularity is such that he could, if he played himself correct, take over America with "The Party of Trump".

Mark my words.  If he lose in 2020, he will not give it up easily.  He will fight to the bitter end and tell his supporters to do the same.  If he wins, he'll tease (about half way through his second term) "So, what do ya think?  Anthother 4 more years?  Keep America great?  I mean, who could do it better than me?"


So no, it has never been demonstrated that a sitting president can get away with Murder direct murder.  They can with other kinds of murder, but that's all by proxy and military based.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4197 on: July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM »
Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote
. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4198 on: July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM »
Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote
. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US. It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8651
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4199 on: July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM »
Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote
. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

Quote
It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.