US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

"Ian Read, chairman and CEO of Pfizer Inc. spoke with President Trump last July about pausing drug price hikes. Pfizer now plans to increase prices of 41 of its drugs later this month."

It seems the talks were a beautiful success, according to Trump.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

It seems the talks were a beautiful success, according to Trump.

pause

/pôz/

verb: pause; 3rd person present: pauses; past tense: paused; past participle: paused; gerund or present participle: pausing

1. interrupt action or speech briefly.
   "she paused, at a loss for words"

noun: pause; plural noun: pauses

a temporary stop in action or speech.
"she dropped me outside during a brief pause in the rain"

[vienna]

There is an old axiom in law: ignorance of the law is no excuse...

Ignorance of the content of a law is not a valid defense : fair enough...


How about this for a defense: a person cannot be guilty of a crime because they are too stupid to fully commit the crime?...

Sounds like a stupid argument to defend a stupid person, but, hey, the Wall Street Journal has floated that idea as a defense of Trump's Ukraine debacle:

Intriguingly, Mr. Taylor says in his statement that many people in the Administration opposed the Giuliani effort, including some in senior positions at the White House. This matters because it may turn out that while Mr. Trump wanted a quid-pro-quo policy ultimatum toward Ukraine, he was too inept to execute it. Impeachment for incompetence would disqualify most of the government, and most Presidents at some point or another in office.

Schiff’s Secret Bombshells --

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs...ls-11571872974


I know a lot of the forum members may not be able to get access to the WSJ site and I looked around for any other sites that may have republished the op-ed piece, but, a s yet, I have not found one, with full text, that does not link back to the WSJ; if anyone can find an easily accessible posting of the WSJ piece, it would be appreciated if a link would be posted. I am posting this link to the Law & Crime analysis of the op-ed piece since it quotes the relevant portions of the article; it also offers an analysis of this rather bizarre and novel legal stretch the minions and Trumpettes are seemingly trying to foist off as actual legal standing:


WSJ Editorial Board Argued Trump Shouldn’t Be Impeached for Being ‘Inept,’ and It Didn’t Go Well --

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/wsj-...didnt-go-well/


Trump, never one to let a slight of his much self-vaunted "genius" go unanswered, has been irked by the WSJ piece and has been claiming he is smart enough to commit a crime such as the quid pro quo; Trump just keeps putting his foot in his mouth; I do believe by now, he is nibbling around his inner thigh...


Trump Wants You to Know He’s Smart and Capable Enough to ‘Do Quid Pro Quo’ --

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...o-quid-pro-quo


A few months back, I was looking into anther matter and I came across this rather interesting document prepared by Covington & Burling LLP, a law firm that handles matters related to the government for its clients; the document is an analysis of the operations and the rules governing those operations by various Congressional committees; I found it enlightening as a means of separating the wheat from the media and party spins on the actual functions of Congressional Committees:


Congressional Investigations and the Rules of the 116th Congress --

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/co...h_congress.pdf


I also found this document, recently; it was prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a function of the Library of Congress, that works exclusively for Congress. This report was prepared in 1999 and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, it has not been superseded. For those of you who, like myself, do do the 'homework', who don't invoke the "TLDR" school of research, who don't parrot th utterances talking heads of either party, who value fact over 'drive-by' dribble and who like to backup what they contend with actual research, you may find this annotated legal analysis of the powers and processes of depositions such as have been recently held by the three joint House committees a clarification of what has been clouded over by spin:


Staff Depositions in Congressional Investigations --

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-949.pdf


Basically, the above report is what the House has been using as part of its guidelines regarding hearings and depositions; straight fact, no filter. It should also be noted that the GOP's constant snowflake bitching and whining about the joint impeachment depositions is the GOP, the Trump minions, and the Trumpettes filling their pampers over rules put in place in 2015 by...



... ...


...the then GOP controlled House leadership. That's right: the GOP is kvetching about a system them set in place themselves. And why did they put such rules in place? Because they were rigging the rules in hopes of easing their own inquiries into the Obama Administration and, if a DEM had won in 2016, any future inquiries into whichever DEM was in the White House. Now, they've lost, in a very big loss, their control of the House and they're 'cleverness' has come back to bite them...


It is classic: make the rule, live by the rule, break the rule, die by the rule...








<O>

[Rockstar]

Frankly, if that's all the WSJ has to offer then who needs it?



So far, just like the Mueller investigation all there has been is accusations and lawless media opinion and drama. Absolutely no charges based on FACTUAL evidence has been presented by the House, let alone an impeachment vote. Even if in the course of the investigation by the House he is impeached. In order that he be removed from office, the Senate is required to hold a trial based on the articles of impeachment sent to them by the House. If found guilty, I can guarantee there will a appeals to higher courts.



We are far from anything lawful going on.



My only wishful thinking is that there would be a call for civility. Right now our leaders are behaving more like those found vying for power in a third world banana republics.

[Mr Quatro]

The crime committed was asking for something that did not happen, seems like a good excuse for the Senate to forgive the Democrats rush to dump Trump knowing that they can't win in November 2020.

[Rockstar]

Media sensationalism, accusations, fluff and drama. Constantly hammering away at the human psyche with the idea the public will tire of it and vote differently just to make it stop.


Similar tactic used with Brexit IMO.

[Buddahaid]

It's a tactic that has been in use for some time and it doesn't matter who's in power. I'd say it's a tactic that is as old as all forms of communication.

[Skybird]

A quick glance at this list shows in one second why Little Cesar will win the next elections if he does not get impeached.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/u...gtype=Homepage

[Rockstar]

i could be mistaken but i dont think impeachment by the housebalone disqualifies anyone fom another run. if however there is a conviction after a senate trial then i think that ends it.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

The crime committed was asking for something that did not happen, seems like a good excuse for the Senate to forgive the Democrats rush to dump Trump knowing that they can't win in November 2020.

Even if the crime is not fully realized, the attempt to commit, or solicit, the commission of a crime is, in and of itself, a crime; this is seen in the crimes such as attempted robbery or attempted murder, etc.; the actual attempt to organize and carry out a crime is covered, in law, as the crime of criminal conspiracy; just because one isn't able, for whatever reason, to fully complete their criminal intent, they are not immune from laws covering the planning and/or attempted execution of a crime...


As far as not being able to defeat Trump in 2020, the Trumptanic seems fully capable of rushing headlong into an iceberg of its own making...


Full steam ahead!!...






<O>

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

The crime committed was asking for something that did not happen, seems like a good excuse for the Senate to forgive the Democrats rush to dump Trump knowing that they can't win in November 2020.

Poor Mr. Quatro. you appear to have heard in the news which has been hammering away on an almost hourly basis telling you crime has been committed. Has it though? No investigation, no trial, no due process. Yet here you say a crime has been committed? Why?

[Mr Quatro]

Sometimes it happens Rockstar that people misconstrue what I meant.

I meant that Trump is being investigated for a crime by the democrats and the way out for the Senate is that he did not get what he wanted so where is the crime?

That's okay I still love you and eddie (who hates me) and vienna (who disdains me) and August (whom I respect for his service to our country in the Vietnam war) and let us not forget Bilge Rat (who tells it like it is) along with Macdef and Buddahaid and Sky adding to our ever present crew of view points.

If I left you out I'm sorry still drinking my coffee

[August]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

.. and August (whom I respect for his service to our country in the Vietnam war)

Damn i'm old enough but not quite that old!
Pop served in Vietnam in 1966-67.
I joined up at age 17 in 1977.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

Damn i'm old enough but not quite that old!
Pop served in Vietnam in 1966-67.
I joined up at age 17 in 1977.

Sorry, all I remember is a picture you posted as a communications tech next to a special truck and thought it was Vietnam. Well I still respect you for hanging in there against all odds.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I meant that Trump is being investigated for a crime by the democrats and the way out for the Senate is that he did not get what he wanted so where is the crime?

This made me recall what they in the Swedish law call intent(=Uppsåt)

What was Mr Trump's intent ? Was it to harm an another person politically ?

Was it with malicious intent ?

Or some other reason.

Markus