The president is a criminal

[realibrad]

Except it didn't keep a lid on it at all, seeing as how Trump is President. You know, the most uncivil President in our lifetimes & probably our entire History. And he was elected largely on the basis of a giant "Fuck You!" to the rest of America & the world.

Expecting everybody to remain perfectly calm & civil in the face of that isn't remotely realistic.

Obama left and what we got was Hillary vs Donald.

Look at Obama's speech vs Clinton's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)

http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/

Obama does not make an us vs them argument. Obama places everyone together fighting against bad ideas, but, its inclusive. Clinton takes the "they" approach. Look at how often she says They want, they Same, they... you start to see the difference. Obama had the idea of progress and pulling everyone along. Very different approach. She played to the resentment that people had, Obama took the high road. I would be that he goes down as the most classy president in my lifetime, and I am only in my 30s.

 

[momeNt]

So... if I understand this correctly, this is under the assumption that the American Media payment to Stormy is a campaign contribution.

Couldn't somebody argue that AMI and Pecker's relationship with Trump goes back decades? That Trump has a bona fide interest in protection his image for both personal and business reasons, not just campaign reasons? Why is this being considered open and shut? It is because it happened during a campaign? There is an industry of representing women who have had affairs with celebrities, the payments stemming from them are all campaign contributions? Or only the ones where people are running for office? What reason do celebrities (Trump) have for hush payments if not running for President?

Very confusing to me, not sure this is as open and shut as many would like it to be. If it were, he'd be in jail, unless we believe in some conservative conspiracy to keep Trump in office and Pence as VP.

 

[realibrad]

I think the issue is that you have a different definition of what civility is than everyone else both in its current context and in its historical context.

Making politicians, who support bad policy, feel uncomfortable and forcing them out from public spaces (as in places where anyone can go) is a form of civil disobedience and something MLK did and would approve of. I doubt you would consider that as being civil.

It depends. If those people walked up to them and spoke their mind in a civil way, then its fine to make them uncomfortable. If those people are going up yelling, screaming, and invading their personal space, no, that is not civil.

If Sarah Sanders were out at lunch, and you walked up to her and said in a normal conversational tone "I think you are doing a great harm helping spread lies. Your actions along with your boss's actions are undermining the foundation of this country, and it will eventually lead to its downfall if left unchecked. I hope that you and your agenda fail because I think the country would be better off." then that is civil.

You can make people uncomfortable in a civil way.

 

[ivwshane]

Obama left and what we got was Hillary vs Donald.

Look at Obama's speech vs Clinton's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)

http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/

Obama does not make an us vs them argument. Obama places everyone together fighting against bad ideas, but, its inclusive. Clinton takes the "they" approach. Look at how often she says They want, they Same, they... you start to see the difference. Obama had the idea of progress and pulling everyone along. Very different approach. She played to the resentment that people had, Obama took the high road. I would be that he goes down as the most classy president in my lifetime, and I am only in my 30s.

I'm not following your point. I'm not sure why you are bringing up Hillary when trump was the one that won. I'm not sure why you are commenting on hillary's divisiveness when, clearly, trump was more divisive than Hillary.

 

[ivwshane]

So... if I understand this correctly, this is under the assumption that the American Media payment to Stormy is a campaign contribution.

Couldn't somebody argue that AMI and Pecker's relationship with Trump goes back decades? That Trump has a bona fide interest in protection his image for both personal and business reasons, not just campaign reasons? Why is this being considered open and shut? It is because it happened during a campaign? There is an industry of representing women who have had affairs with celebrities, the payments stemming from them are all campaign contributions? Or only the ones where people are running for office? What reason do celebrities (Trump) have for hush payments if not running for President?

Very confusing to me, not sure this is as open and shut as many would like it to be. If it were, he'd be in jail, unless we believe in some conservative conspiracy to keep Trump in office and Pence as VP.

The reason its looked at as campaign finance violation is because of the timing. The incident occurred prior to trump announcing his presidential bid however the payment was done with less than a month to go till the election. Payments to anyone or anything that can have a material affect on an election must be disclosed. Trump didn't do that, therefore he violated campaign finance laws.

 

[momeNt]

The reason its looked at as campaign finance violation is because of the timing. The incident occurred prior to trump announcing his presidential bid however the payment was done with less than a month to go till the election. Payments to anyone or anything that can have a material affect on an election must be disclosed. Trump didn't do that, therefore he violated campaign finance laws.

Define "can", he won an election by grabbing women by the pussy, him having consensual sex with stormy daniels arguably could not have had an affect.

 

[ivwshane]

Define "can", he won an election by grabbing women by the pussy, him having consensual sex with stormy daniels arguably could not have had an affect.

You don't think that if a woman came out and said trump had sex with her while his wife was pregnant would have had any impact?

Ok but that says a lot about our electorate.

 

[dank69]

Obama left and what we got was Hillary vs Donald.

Look at Obama's speech vs Clinton's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)

http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/

Obama does not make an us vs them argument. Obama places everyone together fighting against bad ideas, but, its inclusive. Clinton takes the "they" approach. Look at how often she says They want, they Same, they... you start to see the difference. Obama had the idea of progress and pulling everyone along. Very different approach. She played to the resentment that people had, Obama took the high road. I would be that he goes down as the most classy president in my lifetime, and I am only in my 30s.

Yet Obama drove the conservatives bonkers.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not following your point. I'm not sure why you are bringing up Hillary when trump was the one that won. I'm not sure why you are commenting on hillary's divisiveness when, clearly, trump was more divisive than Hillary.

The Left had been the side that was unifying and civil. When Obama left, that stopped. What we then got from the Left was Hillary and her style of us vs them. That was a shift from Obama's style which was unification. That unification theme started early, which you can see going back from his start when they talked about Lincoln being his influence.

When Obama came to office, the Left was angry after Bush, and that anger was building. In comes Obama and there was Hope. The Left calmed down, and the Right stayed, became angry. The Right went to extremes though, and that was fine at first, until the Right went so far that it started pissing off the Left again. Then we got Hillary that tried to tap into that anger, just as the Republicans tapped into their base's anger. Thats a bad thing for the country, but it can work politically.

So yes, Trump was far more divisive by many country miles. The point is that Hillary took the lid off the Left's anger and tried to use it. With nobody to put it back on, the Left has started down the path that the Right went down so long ago.

 

[realibrad]

Yet Obama drove the conservatives bonkers.

Well, more that they drove themselves bonkers. That does not mean that Obama being classy and unifying did not help keep the situation under control.

 

[ivwshane]

The Left had been the side that was unifying and civil. When Obama left, that stopped. What we then got from the Left was Hillary and her style of us vs them. That was a shift from Obama's style which was unification. That unification theme started early, which you can see going back from his start when they talked about Lincoln being his influence.

When Obama came to office, the Left was angry after Bush, and that anger was building. In comes Obama and there was Hope. The Left calmed down, and the Right stayed, became angry. The Right went to extremes though, and that was fine at first, until the Right went so far that it started pissing off the Left again. Then we got Hillary that tried to tap into that anger, just as the Republicans tapped into their base's anger. Thats a bad thing for the country, but it can work politically.

So yes, Trump was far more divisive by many country miles. The point is that Hillary took the lid off the Left's anger and tried to use it. With nobody to put it back on, the Left has started down the path that the Right went down so long ago.

Sure, that's your opinion and not one based on reality and instead on cherry picked examples but ok.

 

[dank69]

Well, more that they drove themselves bonkers. That does not mean that Obama being classy and unifying did not help keep the situation under control.

The situation was not under control. Record obstructionism culminating in blocking his SCOTUS nomination. Keep telling yourself that they drove themselves bonkers and it had nothing to do with Obama. Even independents swung toward the Republicans during his terms.

 

[realibrad]

The situation was not under control. Record obstructionism culminating in blocking his SCOTUS nomination. Keep telling yourself that they drove themselves bonkers and it had nothing to do with Obama. Even independents swung toward the Republicans during his terms.

That was not society at large. Even still, it could still have been a lot worse had Obama not been there.

 

[realibrad]

Sure, that's your opinion and not one based on reality and instead on cherry picked examples but ok.

Flesh that out. What do you think is cherry picked and is not congruent with reality?

 

[ivwshane]

Flesh that out. What do you think is cherry picked and is not congruent with reality?

I could but then I'd be doing the same thing you are, cherry picking examples to support my counter narrative. Unless you have some concrete evidence to support your claim, your claim is purely opinion.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not following your point. I'm not sure why you are bringing up Hillary when trump was the one that won. I'm not sure why you are commenting on hillary's divisiveness when, clearly, trump was more divisive than Hillary.

Because both sides, obviously.

 

[pcgeek11]

Like the preponderance of evidence suggesting Hillary did Benghazi and Uranium One?

Also, the standard in a court of law isn't a preponderance of evidence, it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you give a reasonable explanation other than what the evidence suggests?

Witness testimony qualifies as evidence and is not the same as hearsay.

This has nothing to do with Hillary...

And I stand corrected it is indeed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have not seen all of the evidence and I do not know of any charges against Trump at the moment. Lots of accusations from the left, but no actual charges. I understand that you are attempting to rope me into a hard statement that you can use to beat me with later. As it stands at this point in time, I'll hold my judgement and wait until the Mueller Probing is over.

I know witness testimony counts as evidence. I also think you have to look to the motive of the witness. Such as Cohen saving is own hide...

 

[realibrad]

I could but then I'd be doing the same thing you are, cherry picking examples to support my counter narrative. Unless you have some concrete evidence to support your claim, your claim is purely opinion.

Neither of us are experts here. I'm not going to shit on you for my perception of being wrong and or misinformed. If you are having an honest discussion then I'm all in.

What do you think my argument is, and what do you think is not supported?

 

[pcgeek11]

Are you willing to comment on your analysis of the evidence available to you?

More directly, do you think that the evidence against Trump in this matter currently warrants removal? If not, can you contribute to the criteria that might be required to convince you?

I'll start. Michael Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign finance felony, and this plea was accepted by federal judge, indicating that yes what he plead to meets the statutory requirements for the crime. Michael Cohen explicitly stated that this crime was committed by the direction of a candidate for office for the principle purpose of influencing an election. While Trump was not directly named, he is the only person who could possibly fit the description for the unindicted co-conspirator.

Assertions:
1. If a person is found guilty (by plea or trial) of a crime that was committed at the direction of another individual, then that other individual is automatically guilty of the crime as a co-conspirator and no elements of the crime itself need to be proven so long as the co-conspirator's account that the crime was directed by the other individual is proven. By direction, I mean explicit direction is proven (e.g. that the directing individual knew the method of carrying out the crime and reasonably expected their direction would be acted upon).
2. Felony campaign finance violation to influence a presidential candidate's own election is an offense, if proven, that warrants without exception the removal of the President.

Unless you can refute those assertions, I think the only thing we need to discuss is what it takes to substantiate that what Cohen plead to in federal court is true.

Yes, I will comment.

No, I do not think at this point anything has been proven. Reason to suspect, OK. Proven, No.

I think it is going to be near impossible to "prove" the reasoning behind the hush money. I know Cohen said..., but they kind of have him over a barrel very much like the way they had Flynn ( bankrupt him with legal fees and threaten his son ) I think Cohen will say whatever it takes to save his own ass or keep his penalty to a minimum.

I cannot deny that Cohen made the payment at the direction of Trump. It was before he declared for the campaign and it could have arguably been to protect his image for Family and Business. Neither of which is a crime. That is where the sticking point is Proving what Trumps intentions were. Short of a recording or a witness ( other than Cohen ) I don't see how it can be proven.

If it is proven he violated Federal Campaign Finance Laws then yes kick him out and indict him as required by law.

 

[dank69]

This has nothing to do with Hillary...

And I stand corrected it is indeed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have not seen all of the evidence and I do not know of any charges against Trump at the moment. Lots of accusations from the left, but no actual charges. I understand that you are attempting to rope me into a hard statement that you can use to beat me with later. As it stands at this point in time, I'll hold my judgement and wait until the Mueller Probing is over.

He hasn't been charged because he can't be until he is impeached. If your threshold for impeachment is someone bringing charges against him then he is immune and can do whatever he wants.

I know witness testimony counts as evidence. I also think you have to look to the motive of the witness. Such as Cohen saving is own hide...

And do you think lying to the FBI is a good way to save your hide?

 

[dank69]

Yes, I will comment.

No, I do not think at this point anything has been proven. Reason to suspect, OK. Proven, No.

I think it is going to be near impossible to "prove" the reasoning behind the hush money. I know Cohen said..., but they kind of have him over a barrel very much like the way they had Flynn ( bankrupt him with legal fees and threaten his son ) I think Cohen will say whatever it takes to save his own ass or keep his penalty to a minimum.

I cannot deny that Cohen made the payment at the direction of Trump. It was before he declared for the campaign and it could have arguably been to protect his image for Family and Business. Neither of which is a crime. That is where the sticking point is Proving what Trumps intentions were. Short of a recording or a witness ( other than Cohen ) I don't see how it can be proven.

If it is proven he violated Federal Campaign Finance Laws then yes kick him out and indict him as required by law.

He didn't make the payment before he declared. He fucked her before he declared. He made the payment a month before the election.

 

[dank69]

That was not society at large. Even still, it could still have been a lot worse had Obama not been there.

Society at large? What the fuck are you on about? It was every conservative everywhere across the damn nation. You couldn't go to a fucking family picnic without at least one person bitching about Obama.

 

[interchange]

Yes, I will comment.

No, I do not think at this point anything has been proven. Reason to suspect, OK. Proven, No.

I think it is going to be near impossible to "prove" the reasoning behind the hush money. I know Cohen said..., but they kind of have him over a barrel very much like the way they had Flynn ( bankrupt him with legal fees and threaten his son ) I think Cohen will say whatever it takes to save his own ass or keep his penalty to a minimum.

I cannot deny that Cohen made the payment at the direction of Trump. It was before he declared for the campaign and it could have arguably been to protect his image for Family and Business. Neither of which is a crime. That is where the sticking point is Proving what Trumps intentions were. Short of a recording or a witness ( other than Cohen ) I don't see how it can be proven.

If it is proven he violated Federal Campaign Finance Laws then yes kick him out and indict him as required by law.

As I read your response, what I take from it is that for you to conclude that the President should be removed for these payments, the only element presently missing is demonstration that Trump's intent in making the payments was to aid the election specifically. Is that an accurate statement?

 

[fskimospy]

So... if I understand this correctly, this is under the assumption that the American Media payment to Stormy is a campaign contribution.

Couldn't somebody argue that AMI and Pecker's relationship with Trump goes back decades? That Trump has a bona fide interest in protection his image for both personal and business reasons, not just campaign reasons? Why is this being considered open and shut? It is because it happened during a campaign? There is an industry of representing women who have had affairs with celebrities, the payments stemming from them are all campaign contributions? Or only the ones where people are running for office? What reason do celebrities (Trump) have for hush payments if not running for President?

Very confusing to me, not sure this is as open and shut as many would like it to be. If it were, he'd be in jail, unless we believe in some conservative conspiracy to keep Trump in office and Pence as VP.

It’s generally considered open and shut because all of the people involved in the payment said it was for the purpose of influencing the election.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I will comment.

No, I do not think at this point anything has been proven. Reason to suspect, OK. Proven, No.

I think it is going to be near impossible to "prove" the reasoning behind the hush money. I know Cohen said..., but they kind of have him over a barrel very much like the way they had Flynn ( bankrupt him with legal fees and threaten his son ) I think Cohen will say whatever it takes to save his own ass or keep his penalty to a minimum.

I cannot deny that Cohen made the payment at the direction of Trump. It was before he declared for the campaign and it could have arguably been to protect his image for Family and Business. Neither of which is a crime. That is where the sticking point is Proving what Trumps intentions were. Short of a recording or a witness ( other than Cohen ) I don't see how it can be proven.

If it is proven he violated Federal Campaign Finance Laws then yes kick him out and indict him as required by law.

He made the payment immediately after the ‘grab em by the pussy’ tape came out.

 

[interchange]

It’s generally considered open and shut because all of the people involved in the payment said it was for the purpose of influencing the election.

In this instance, I am hoping there's an opportunity to meet @pcgeek11 where he is at. I don't find it unreasonable to think that what you say might not suffice. I don't agree with that opinion personally, but I would find it a shame to shut out the possibility of integrating a difference if you can find reason within the difference.