Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #951  
Old 06-05-2019, 11:17 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Quick question... are you sticking with this? Even now?
Funny, he has been posting but hasn't followed up here!
  #952  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:25 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Funny, he has been posting but hasn't followed up here!
I would like to believe that this silence meant that he, and the rest of the, "No collusion, no obstruction," crowd were capable of shame, but that would almost certainly lead to disappointment.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 06-05-2019 at 03:29 PM.
  #953  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:40 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,459
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
  #954  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:48 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Wheres that guy who kept talking about Kilimnik?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...partment%3famp


Lol. Turns out the guy was working for the FBI informing on Yanukovych.

“State officials told the FBI that although Kilimnik had Ukrainian and Russian residences, he did not appear to hold any allegiance to Moscow and was critical of Russia's invasion of the Crimean territory of Ukraine.

"Most sources of information in Ukraine were slanted in one direction or another," Kasanof told agents. "Kilimnik came across as less slanted than others."

"Kilimnik was flabbergasted at the Russian invasion of Crimea," the FBI added, summarizing Kasanof's interview with agents.”
  #955  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:53 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The whole point of obstruction is to prevent investigators from finding the evidence of the underlying crime. And it's very often successful. That's why obstruction has to be treated as a serious crime (which our legal system does) even if the underlying crime can't be proved. Proof was prevented by obstruction.

Like Patrick Fitzgerald said after Scooter Libby got convicted of obstruction, it's like throwing sand in the umpire's eyes so he can't make the call.
Never said obstruction charges shouldn’t be pursued. My claim is short and sweet like the fat man’s dance: there has been no hard evidence of collusion/coordination/conspiracy or even high-fives between Trump and the Russians.
  #956  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:56 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If you're in favor of Trump being removed from office, I'm not inclined to quibble with you about whether the conviction from the Senate should be printed on taupe paper or ecru paper.
Keep in mind, the items Trump should be impeached for will also bring Obama under scrutiny and perhaps he will also be imprisoned. I hope this doesn’t change your mind.
  #957  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:08 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Never said obstruction charges shouldn’t be pursued. My claim is short and sweet like the fat man’s dance: there has been no hard evidence of collusion/coordination/conspiracy or even high-fives between Trump and the Russians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
Despite denials from the campaign and the White House, it is now clear that members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 32 times throughout the campaign. (There are at least 20 known meetings.) Knowledge of these communications went to the highest levels of Donald Trump’s operation — both Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort, two of the campaign’s three managers, were aware of it.
So what where they doing? Exchanging fashion tips?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #958  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:33 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
So what where they doing? Exchanging fashion tips?
Idk, but my head is sweating from the tinfoil.

Hint: this is where you present evidence.
  #959  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:36 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Idk, but my head is sweating from the tinfoil.

Hint: this is where you present evidence.
You're the one that said they hadn't so much as High Fived each other. The above is evidence that it's much more than that.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.

Last edited by enipla; 06-10-2019 at 03:37 PM.
  #960  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:42 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
You're the one that said they hadn't so much as High Fived each other. The above is evidence that it's much more than that.
Meetings are evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or high fives? All three?
  #961  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:47 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Meetings are evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or high fives? All three?
I'm sure it was fashion tips. Maybe exchanging recipe's.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #962  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:06 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
Can't quote WillFarnaby:
"Keep in mind, the items Trump should be impeached for will also bring Obama under scrutiny and perhaps he will also be imprisoned."

Oh please, be specific! Have you inside information? Share it, man! Don't leave everyone guessing. Are you talking about Obama's frequent obstruction of the Mueller investigation? That's it, right?
Unless you'd care to be specific.
  #963  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:15 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,137
Trump never would've fired James Comey if Obama hadn't hired him, so there's a lot of blame to go around.
  #964  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:25 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
Good point. Now that you mention it, Lester Holt, to whom Trump admitted obstruction, spent a lot of time as a news anchor here in Chicago. Obama lives in Chicago. Coincidence?

Last edited by bobot; 06-10-2019 at 04:26 PM. Reason: ,
  #965  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:13 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Keep in mind, the items Trump should be impeached for will also bring Obama under scrutiny and perhaps he will also be imprisoned. I hope this doesn’t change your mind.


QAnon. Nice.
  #966  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:48 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Keep in mind, the items Trump should be impeached for will also bring Obama under scrutiny and perhaps he will also be imprisoned. I hope this doesn’t change your mind.
The thing is Will, that this threat really doesn't actually work. Its like people who are trying to claim executive privilege for Trumps tax returns by threatening to expose the tax returns of Democrat presidents. It doesn't work as a threat if the other side is already in favor of it. If Obama was exposed as having committed severe crimes or used his presdiential powers to criminally obstruct investigations of himself I for one would be very glad to hear that he was held accountable for his crimes.

What else you got?
  #967  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:41 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,836
But his e-mails!
  #968  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:34 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,168
"If you ignore the evidence, there's no evidence!" continues to be a deeply compelling argument.
  #969  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:52 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Meetings are evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or high fives? All three?
Not all meetings are evidence of collusion, but these particular meetings were. Hard evidence of collusion. Lots of it.
  #970  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:53 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians

Quote:
Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis.
Many of those 140 contacts satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion.

There was lots of collusion and lots of hard evidence thereof.
  #971  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:06 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,631
171 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Rep. Nadler said yesterday in his opening remarks.
  #972  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:00 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Can't quote WillFarnaby:
"Keep in mind, the items Trump should be impeached for will also bring Obama under scrutiny and perhaps he will also be imprisoned."

Oh please, be specific! Have you inside information? Share it, man! Don't leave everyone guessing. Are you talking about Obama's frequent obstruction of the Mueller investigation? That's it, right?
Unless you'd care to be specific.
War crimes in Yemen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
QAnon. Nice.
Don’t get the reference, and quite frankly I am probably better off for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The thing is Will, that this threat really doesn't actually work. Its like people who are trying to claim executive privilege for Trumps tax returns by threatening to expose the tax returns of Democrat presidents. It doesn't work as a threat if the other side is already in favor of it. If Obama was exposed as having committed severe crimes or used his presdiential powers to criminally obstruct investigations of himself I for one would be very glad to hear that he was held accountable for his crimes.

What else you got?
I doubt you would. See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Not all meetings are evidence of collusion, but these particular meetings were. Hard evidence of collusion. Lots of it.
Oh ok. What is special about these meetings?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-11-2019 at 03:01 PM.
  #973  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:58 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
War crimes in Yemen
Trump is going to be impeached for war crimes in Yemen, and then Obama will be punished for war crimes in Yemen?

What the fuck...?
  #974  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:01 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
Hey, that's what I was going to ask!
  #975  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:03 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh ok. What is special about these meetings?
Is this a real question?

Collusion. That's what's special. Collusion and lots of it with hard evidence and everything.

Are you paying attention?
  #976  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:36 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,631
Also posted in the Pit threads: Hope Hicks has agreed to a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee June 19th! One week from today!
  #977  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:42 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,168
Not that Trump's campaign ever accepted dirt on political rivals from foreign governments in order to help him get elected, mind you, but hypothetically speaking he says he totally would be fine with doing so and not necessarily mentioning it to the FBI.
  #978  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Also posted in the Pit threads: Hope Hicks has agreed to a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee June 19th! One week from today!
There's not necessarily a downside for the president here. She testifies in a closed-door session and denies any wrongdoing. The president and his allies can say they're cooperating.

What the Democrats want is for Bob Mueller to testify. Strangely, for someone who hinted pretty conspicuously that Congress could impeach the President, he doesn't seem interested in helping Democrats to that end.

I think Democrats need to accept that they are not going to win with Russia-gate, and they are not going to win with impeachment. They can only win by pointing out the callousness and corruption of the Republican party. That's what really matters to people -- not Mueller.
  #979  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:23 AM
Poto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 2,699
The point of impeachment is to get the facts out before the election. Trump cannot block the House interrogating people. The Senate will clear him, but so what? He will be shamed. He can't stand that. And ridicule. We will ridicule him for months, lots of TV air time.
  #980  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:59 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Is this a real question?

Collusion. That's what's special. Collusion and lots of it with hard evidence and everything.

Are you paying attention?
Hard evidence of collusion is these meetings. Meetings don’t always mean collusion but these meetings mean collusion because there was lots of collusion with hard evidence.

Welp. Case closed.
  #981  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:00 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Trump is going to be impeached for war crimes in Yemen, and then Obama will be punished for war crimes in Yemen?

What the fuck...?
Yes. They are both guilty of war crimes in Yemen.
  #982  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:43 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,664
Derp.
  #983  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:49 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Hard evidence of collusion is these meetings. Meetings don’t always mean collusion but these meetings mean collusion because there was lots of collusion with hard evidence.

Welp. Case closed.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this whole collusion thing. I have helpfully prepared a brief list of do's and don'ts (one do, one don't) that you can reference when you are trying to determine if a thing is collusion.

Do: ask yourself the question, "Does this thing satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion?" If the answer to that question is, "Yes," then you are done and you know that thing is collusion.

Don't: ask yourself the question, or questions like, "Was this a meeting?" This question, and questions like it, are distractions that don't tell you anything about collusion one way or the other.
  #984  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:55 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this whole collusion thing. I have helpfully prepared a brief list of do's and don'ts (one do, one don't) that you can reference when you are trying to determine if a thing is collusion.

Do: ask yourself the question, "Does this thing satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion?" If the answer to that question is, "Yes," then you are done and you know that thing is collusion.

Don't: ask yourself the question, or questions like, "Was this a meeting?" This question, and questions like it, are distractions that don't tell you anything about collusion one way or the other.
I agree that I am having trouble. Trouble finding evidence of collusion.

Are all meetings collusion?

Are these meetings collusion?

Why are these meetings collusion and other meetings not collusion?
  #985  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:02 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,631
I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone expend so much effort to be deliberately ignorant.
  #986  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:03 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Are all meetings collusion?
No. Clearly not and already so stated in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Are these meetings collusion?
Some are. Some aren't. This has also already been posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Why are these meetings collusion and other meetings not collusion?
The ones that satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion are collusion.

Furthermore, not all collusion comes in the form of meetings.

If you have any other questions refer to the ordinary everyday definition of collusion. Note: this definition typically does not contain the word "meeting".
  #987  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:16 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I agree that I am having trouble. Trouble finding evidence of collusion.
Maybe you could just read the report.
  #988  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:20 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Do: ask yourself the question, "Does this thing satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion?" If the answer to that question is, "Yes," then you are done and you know that thing is collusion.
(snipped both ways, my bolding)

What do you mean by "ordinary everyday definition of collusion"?
Is it:
a) What laypeople think it is, i.e., something a bit dodgy, not quite kosher?
b) The legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law?

If it is a, then what laypeople think is collusion is irrelevant as to Trump's impeachability. Laws don't work that way. Most people have a definition of defamation that is identical to libel, the same as with larceny/robbery/theft.
If it is b, then the appropriate code/law must be produced and serve as basis.
  #989  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:25 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,631
Sweet! Another pointless attempt to "lawyer" the conversation!
  #990  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:37 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
(snipped both ways, my bolding)

What do you mean by "ordinary everyday definition of collusion"?
Is it:
a) What laypeople think it is, i.e., something a bit dodgy, not quite kosher?
b) The legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law?
I don't understand how this could be a question. "Ordinary everyday definition," is self explanatory. It is, of course, what laypeople mean by the word when they say in non-technical contexts.

There is no legal definition or appropriate code/law. We were told this over and over again while the investigation was ongoing, and Mueller states this explicitly in the report.

Quote:
But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.
  #991  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:43 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
(snipped both ways, my bolding)

What do you mean by "ordinary everyday definition of collusion"?
Is it:
a) What laypeople think it is, i.e., something a bit dodgy, not quite kosher?
b) The legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law?

If it is a, then what laypeople think is collusion is irrelevant as to Trump's impeachability. Laws don't work that way. Most people have a definition of defamation that is identical to libel, the same as with larceny/robbery/theft.
If it is b, then the appropriate code/law must be produced and serve as basis.
Well, to be fair, b is almost as irrelevant as a to Trump's impeachability. "High crimes and misdemeanors" isn't defined anywhere apart from being "whatever Congress thinks it is".

The House could define any meeting with a Russian as a "high crime and misdemeanor" and impeach for it if they wanted, and seem to be in the process of trying to do so. Lance Turbo appears to be trying to argue that collusion is an impeachable offense. So is practically anything else - it doesn't have to be against the law otherwise.

Regards,
Shodan
  #992  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:44 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
(snipped both ways, my bolding)

What do you mean by "ordinary everyday definition of collusion"?
Is it:
a) What laypeople think it is, i.e., something a bit dodgy, not quite kosher?
b) The legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law?

If it is a, then what laypeople think is collusion is irrelevant as to Trump's impeachability. Laws don't work that way. Most people have a definition of defamation that is identical to libel, the same as with larceny/robbery/theft.
If it is b, then the appropriate code/law must be produced and serve as basis.
You have a "valid point," with the understanding that a "valid point" are not defined in law nor do laypeople necessarily understand what it is.

I, for one, like to describe Doritos has having a "valid point." Three of them, in fact, which is two more than you.
  #993  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:54 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Lance Turbo appears to be trying to argue that collusion is an impeachable offense.
It may appear that way to you, but that is not the case.
  #994  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:26 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
No. Clearly not and already so stated in this thread.



Some are. Some aren't. This has also already been posted.



The ones that satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion are collusion.

Furthermore, not all collusion comes in the form of meetings.

If you have any other questions refer to the ordinary everyday definition of collusion. Note: this definition typically does not contain the word "meeting".
Describe which characteristics of these meetings lead you to believe they satisfy the definition of collusion.
  #995  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:28 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Maybe you could just read the report.
Which pages. Life is short.
  #996  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:35 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,501
You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
  #997  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:43 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Describe which characteristics of these meetings lead you to believe they satisfy the definition of collusion.
No. You have in previous posts rejected the idea that the ordinary everyday definition of is relevant and demonstrated that your personal definition of collusion is extremely non-standard.

Many of the meetings plainly and straightforwardly satisfy the ordinary everyday definition of collusion. I don't think we can move forward until we agree on what that definition is.

What do you think is the ordinary everyday definition of of collusion?
  #998  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:44 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It may appear that way to you, but that is not the case.
Well, if you are arguing that collusion is not an impeachable offense, you are mistaken. If Congress decides collusion is a high crime and misdemeanor, then it is an impeachable offense.

Likewise, if you are arguing that the Mueller report establishes collusion and collusion is not an impeachable offense, then you have wasted a lot of typing talking about the Mueller report as a basis for impeachment.

If you are arguing that collusion is a criminal offense, then Ají de Gallina's point b remains, and you need to cite the "legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law". Then you can finish by explaining how a criminal act isn't an impeachable offense.

Regards,
Shodan
  #999  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:54 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Well, if you are arguing that collusion is not an impeachable offense, you are mistaken. If Congress decides collusion is a high crime and misdemeanor, then it is an impeachable offense.
I am not arguing one way or the other about what is an impeachable offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Likewise, if you are arguing that the Mueller report establishes collusion and collusion is not an impeachable offense, then you have wasted a lot of typing talking about the Mueller report as a basis for impeachment.
I have not argued one way or the other that the Mueller report is a basis for impeachment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you are arguing that collusion is a criminal offense, then Ají de Gallina's point b remains, and you need to cite the "legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law".
I have made it quite clear that I am discussing the ordinary everyday definition of collusion as opposed to the "legal definition set up by the appropriate code/law" since no such legal definition exists.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 06-13-2019 at 11:54 AM.
  #1000  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:16 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
There's not necessarily a downside for the president here. She testifies in a closed-door session and denies any wrongdoing. The president and his allies can say they're cooperating.

What the Democrats want is for Bob Mueller to testify. Strangely, for someone who hinted pretty conspicuously that Congress could impeach the President, he doesn't seem interested in helping Democrats to that end.

I think Democrats need to accept that they are not going to win with Russia-gate, and they are not going to win with impeachment. They can only win by pointing out the callousness and corruption of the Republican party. That's what really matters to people -- not Mueller.
Well, they're probably not going to get much value out of Hope Hicks anyway. Number one, she's testifying behind closed doors which is not as effective for Dems, and number two, she's going to have a White House lawyer with her.

So the WH lawyer is going to be periodically saying "don't answer that, executive privilege." She's not bound by that, I don't think Trump has any legal recourse against her, but she's unlikely to go against it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017