Straight Dope Message Board

[Ann Hedonia]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Anyone whose first thought was not "Lindsey Graham," raise your hand.

As someone else- I don’t remember who- said on these boards once “That would be the least surprising kompromat in the history of kompromat”.

[Elendil's Heir]

If anyone would be clutching his pearls, it'd be Lindsey Graham.

[Sherrerd]

So Mick Mulvaney is holding the line on "the President is above the law" and "the President should not be investigated."

Interestingly, he tried an 'excluded middle' argument on Chris Wallace, who was having none of it:

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on Sunday suggested that Donald Trump could not work with Democrats on legislation if they "punch him in the face" with investigations.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace [asked about the oversight role of Congress].

..."What he's saying is, 'Look, you have a choice, we can either work together on legislation or we can spend all our time doing these investigations but you can't do both,'" the acting Chief of Staff said.

"Wait," Wallace interrupted. "You can do both. And presidents have done both plenty of times."

"Right, but it's not reasonable to expect the president to work with you on Monday on a big infrastructure bill and then on Tuesday have you punch him in the face over 15 different investigations," Mulvaney replied.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/02/m...fuse-pass-laws

As was pointed out in the comments, Democrats have been expected to do their jobs while being investigated. If Trump isn't up to it, maybe he should resign, eh?

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

...As was pointed out in the comments, Democrats have been expected to do their jobs while being investigated. If Trump isn't up to it, maybe he should resign, eh?

I like the cut of your jib, young man!

[Rick Kitchen]

Ted Lieu literally entered the text of the Constitution into the record after he asked Matthew Whitaker where in the Constitution it says that the President can't be indicted while in office, and Whitaker refused to say it was Constitutional.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen

Ted Lieu literally entered the text of the Constitution into the record after he asked Matthew Whitaker where in the Constitution it says that the President can't be indicted while in office, and Whitaker refused to say it was Constitutional.

Good for Lieu.

[RickJay]

I like Ted Lieu and despise Hot Tub Whitaker, but that line of questioning was much more boring, droning and pointless than suggested here. Whitaker did say it wasn't in the Constitution, if you watch the video. He was just getting irritated; Lieu was going through a list of people saying "and does the Constitution say this (type of person) can't be indicted?" and Whitaker was trying to move on.

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I like Ted Lieu and despise Hot Tub Whitaker, but that line of questioning was much more boring, droning and pointless than suggested here. Whitaker did say it wasn't in the Constitution, if you watch the video. He was just getting irritated; Lieu was going through a list of people saying "and does the Constitution say this (type of person) can't be indicted?" and Whitaker was trying to move on.

i kind of agree....but Whitaker even tried to blow the whistle when a congressman's 5 minutes expired, and the chairman wasn't having it. The witness doesn't get to decide when it's "time to move on".

[DesertDog]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

As was pointed out in the comments, Democrats have been expected to do their jobs while being investigated. If Trump isn't up to it, maybe he should resign, eh?

Gee. Who knew being President was so hard?

Originally Posted by RickJay

He was just getting irritated; Lieu was going through a list of people saying "and does the Constitution say this (type of person) can't be indicted?" and Whitaker was trying to move on.

Too bad; maybe he should work for a different boss. It is true, an unindictable President is not in the Constitution, just a tradition, but then so were approving or disapproving his appointments in a timely manner rather than letting them sit until his successor could make them instead.

Funny how the desire to keep traditions is resurgent among the Republicans now, isn't it?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by desertdog

gee. Who knew being president was so hard?too bad; maybe he should work for a different boss. It is true, an unindictable president is not in the constitution, just a tradition, but then so were approving or disapproving his appointments in a timely manner rather than letting them sit until his successor could make them instead.

Funny how the desire to keep traditions is resurgent among the republicans now, isn't it?

iokwardi

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by DesertDog

It is true, an unindictable President is not in the Constitution, just a tradition,

As a textual-originalist, I would note that Congress is specifically given a get-of-jail-free card, so if the Founders (bow your heads) wanted the Executive to have that privilege, I think they would have mentioned it.

not really a textual-originalist

[Maus Magill]

There is precedent for a President to be arrested.

[Knowed Out]

Grant was speeding in a horse and cart. That was disappointing.

[Chronos]

Most especially relevant is that the incident was in DC, meaning that it was under federal, not state, authority that he was arrested. I'm on record as saying that I don't think that the President can be federally indicted against his will, but this does seem to be precedent.

On the other hand, Grant's not showing up for the court date might be taken to mean that he did consent to the action, so the precedent might not be applicable.

And apropos of nothing, I've got a heck of a lot of respect for Officer West. Duty is duty, indeed.

[bobot]

NM

[Folly]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Most especially relevant is that the incident was in DC, meaning that it was under federal, not state, authority that he was arrested. I'm on record as saying that I don't think that the President can be federally indicted against his will, but this does seem to be precedent.

On the other hand, Grant's not showing up for the court date might be taken to mean that he did consent to the action, so the precedent might not be applicable.

And apropos of nothing, I've got a heck of a lot of respect for Officer West. Duty is duty, indeed.

He should of shown up in court and challenged the calibration of the radar gun.

[JohnT]

My horse was drunk, not me!

[Rick Kitchen]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

i kind of agree....but Whitaker even tried to blow the whistle when a congressman's 5 minutes expired, and the chairman wasn't having it. The witness doesn't get to decide when it's "time to move on".

The person he was trying to blow the whistle on WAS the chairman.

[Two Many Cats]

I'm hearing noise like Mueller's final report may not be revealed to the public. Like all of this was for nothing. Like Trump may get away with everything...

If so, we need to find a new Fort Sumter.

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

I'm hearing noise like Mueller's final report may not be revealed to the public.

My advice to you: quit listening to Hannity's fevered prayers.

[ThelmaLou]

The Much-Heralded End of the Mueller Investigation
No one knows when it will actually “wrap up”—or what it will mean when it does.

Everyone is saying it: The Mueller investigation is winding down. The acting attorney general declared the investigation “close to completion” during a press conference. His wife, Marci Whitaker, has also insisted that the special counsel’s investigation is “wrapping up.” President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that, given his public actions, Mueller is “well along” in his investigation.

The press is buying it. NBC says we could be looking at “mid-February” for a delivery of the so-called Mueller report; that would be, well, now. Yahoo! News reported that the probe could be “coming to its climax potentially within a few weeks”—a few weeks ago.

There have also been reports that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has been overseeing the investigation, will likely step down soon, but only after the completion of the Mueller probe.

Other sheep entrails and tea leaves are signaling the end as well.
....

I believe the truth lies in the subhead, i.e., NO ONE KNOWS... That means that Whitaker doesn't know and his wife doesn't know. Barr doesn't know. NBC News doesn't know. Yahoo! News doesn't know. The sheep entrails and tea leaves don't know.

Mueller and his team don't leak. So anyone who says s/he knows doesn't.

We must keep our wits about us, difficult as that may be. And, God help us, it is very difficult.

[Two Many Cats]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

My advice to you: quit listening to Hannity's fevered prayers.

Sean Hannity prays to me? Holy Hell!

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

Sean Hannity prays to me? Holy Hell!

Well, then, you should answer his prayers! Mwa-ah-ah-uh-ah. (That's best I can transcribe for an evil laugh.)

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

Sean Hannity prays to me? Holy Hell!

The man does not have the greatest sense of direction.

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

The man does not have the greatest sense of direction.

Also, in thumpworld, down is up and up is down.

[Elendil's Heir]

And around and around we go....

[Locrian]

Judge says Manafort intentionally lied, voids plea deal.

[JohnT]

Ma, Ma, where's my Wall?
Keeping Manafort in, ha, ha, ha!

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Locrian

Judge says Manafort intentionally lied, voids plea deal.

Intentional lying... that's the worst kind of lying!

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Intentional lying... that's the worst kind of lying!

Well there's also the Trump sort of lying, where you just let your mouth run without knowing or caring whether it's true or not.

[Two Many Cats]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Ma, Ma, where's my Wall?
Keeping Manafort in, ha, ha, ha!

I love the Dope.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Is there any conceivable theory of the case that does not involve Manafort covering up something very, very bad? I mean, he took a huge gamble here (and lost). I can’t imagine he did that lightly and for no reason.

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Is there any conceivable theory of the case that does not involve Manafort covering up something very, very bad? I mean, he took a huge gamble here (and lost). I can’t imagine he did that lightly and for no reason.

Perhaps something scares him more than Mueller?

[Toxgoddess]

Originally Posted by Biotop

Perhaps something scares him more than Mueller?

Or someone. Maybe someone whose initals are V. Putin.

[Northern Piper]

I think there's a simpler explanation.

The people in Trumpworld don't get the meaning of "truth" and "lying."

I've concluded that they really don't understand. You say what helps you in the moment, and it must therefore be true.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Ma, Ma, where's my Wall?
Keeping Manafort in, ha, ha, ha!

I'm Elendil's Heir, and I approve of this rhyme.

Nonconsecutively.

[OttoDaFe]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Is there any conceivable theory of the case that does not involve Manafort covering up something very, very bad? I mean, he took a huge gamble here (and lost). I can’t imagine he did that lightly and for no reason.

<speculation>

He doesn't want to 'fess up to the extent of his contacts with Kilimnik during the time he was a guy who hung around and occasionally got covfefe CFSG's campaign manager. Doing so would draw a great big double-ended arrow between the campaign and the Kremlin, and would also call his (Manafort's) loyalty into question. This would jeopardize his chances of a pardon, which is looking increasingly like his only chance to avoid dying in the slammer.

(Mueller almost certainly knows anything Manafort could tell him already, but the optics are the point.)

</speculation>

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Ma, Ma, where's my Wall?
Keeping Manafort in, ha, ha, ha!

When it comes to the Wall, many in the Trump administration will be up against it.

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

When it comes to the Wall, many in the Trump administration will be up against it.

Yeah, ISWYDT. Here's hoping the paintballs don't cost too much!

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

When it comes to the Wall, many in the Trump administration will be up against it.

Originally Posted by Locrian

Yeah, ISWYDT. Here's hoping the paintballs don't cost too much!

I was thinking cigarettes and blindfolds.

Okay, okay j/k. Cigarettes are bad for your health.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

I can’t imagine he did that lightly and for no reason.

Why not?

This is a man who has never truly been held to account for any of the shady as fuck things he's ever done in his life. His experience and the experience of his equally reptilian peers has been, at worst, a mild scolding for the worst offenses.

It is not surprising if he simply assumed this time was no different. His behavior since his incarceration, including his ridiculous, privileged requests for the terms of his incarceration, have displayed this amply. If it has always worked for him and for all the asshats he associates with, why wouldn't he believe he could just spout transparent lies this time as well?

[Ann Hedonia]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think there's a simpler explanation.

The people in Trumpworld don't get the meaning of "truth" and "lying."

I've concluded that they really don't understand. You say what helps you in the moment, and it must therefore be true.

Yes, this. Sometimes there isn’t much disagreement as to the factual account of what happened, it’s just that team Trump and the law have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.
Like that treasonous Trump Tower meeting, which they brush off as “Anyone would’ve taken that meeting”.

Which was a big deal and I don’t understand why they haven’t nailed Trump Jr to the wall for that. Well, I kind of know why. But regardless of what happened in the room, that whole email chain was damning. And possible kompromat. The Russians always had a copy of those emails, This would have made the Trumps very vulnerable to blackmail during the time before they were publicly released. It should be taken very seriously.

[JohnT]

They knew the meetings were considered wrong... or at least "questionable"... by law enforcement because they lied about having them on their security applications.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think there's a simpler explanation.

The people in Trumpworld don't get the meaning of "truth" and "lying."

I've concluded that they really don't understand. You say what helps you in the moment, and it must therefore be true.

There's also the fact that they're used to running two-bit real estate scams, and have now gotten in deep over their heads in the Great Game where the Russians play hardball and come charging at you sharpened-cleats-up.

[Ike Witt]

Originally Posted by JohnT

because they lied about having them on their security applications.

Why hasn't Jared answered for his constant lying on his security clearance forms?

[enipla]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

There's also the fact that they're used to running two-bit real estate scams, and have now gotten in deep over their heads in the Great Game where the Russians play hardball and come charging at you sharpened-cleats-up.

Yeah. Trump really does think he's a great deal maker and can handle the Russian mob (and government). See, it's just like when he has his flunkeys pay off hookers (and they can't even get that right).

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Ike Witt

Why hasn't Jared answered for his constant lying on his security clearance forms?

Who's going to ask the question?

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by Ike Witt

Why hasn't Jared answered for his constant lying on his security clearance forms?

Well, the result of his investigation was a recommendation that he not get a clearance.

[don't mind me]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think there's a simpler explanation.

The people in Trumpworld don't get the meaning of "truth" and "lying."

I've concluded that they really don't understand. You say what helps you in the moment, and it must therefore be true.

And conversely, anyone who says something that doesn't help them (in their twisted perception) is a liar and purveyor of FAKE NEWS!

[DesertDog]

Originally Posted by Biotop

Perhaps something scares him more than Mueller?

How easy is it to smuggle Ricin into a prison?