Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter whoknew
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Thunderlips
Footballguy
munga30
Checkin' my email
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
McConnell will give 'Case Closed' speech on the Senate floor.
- Big pr push from the WH will likely be ongoing before Mueller testifies or to try to keep him from testifying.
- eta - It's also clear the WH is using the Senate as a clearinghouse, both for Barr's testimony and for their talking points.
Burr's Senate Intel still has to issue its report.
- Big pr push from the WH will likely be ongoing before Mueller testifies or to try to keep him from testifying.
- eta - It's also clear the WH is using the Senate as a clearinghouse, both for Barr's testimony and for their talking points.
Burr's Senate Intel still has to issue its report.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't know if the conclusion is as important so much as the implication that they have read it. They point to multiple findings in the report. I think the most remarkable thing about Barr's testimony wasn't his sweeping putative claim of exoneration but that he did not point to anything in the report to support that, and also that he indicated on several occasions that he had no idea of the key findings.
The other piece is that the prosecutors' letter states that "but for the OLC memo" there would have been an indictment. That's a key part of what Barr is relying on, which is an outright lie that Mueller did not refer to the OLC memo for his decision when he clearly did.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Either your sarcasm meter is out of calibration, or my sarcasm producer is faltering.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
prefontaine
Footballguy
Tough spot for McGahn.
link
The WH continues to use the non-Executive Privilege Executive Privilege angle.
I already think Presidents get too much sway on EP but refusing to comply and not invoking EP so it can be challenged is an abuse of EP. If you think something is Privileged, claim it as such. If not, produce it. This tactic unchecked effectively ends Congressional oversight.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'd like to think the Dems are playing a long game on this and other stuff with Trump. They offer extensions, they offer hearings, they bend, but the WH refuses subpoenas in entirety, deny witnesses, they take extensions (like IRS & Mnuchin) then don't comply. My guess or hope is the Dems are building a record to show a judge when they make claims so it's not all partisan bickering that judges hate as much as ordinary people.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I don't see that happening. What's plan B? Obstruction of justice isn't a hypothetical now, it's just about a certainty. We stand by and do nothing about it? Next President can do all the same stuff too right? As long as they're in office, they're above the law, no checks, no balances, no oversight? That's where you want to take our government?
bostonfred
Footballguy
I wonder if i could somehow flip a switch in my brain to think that this is ok. It would be fun to watch the trump lawyers use every trick in the book to confound the investigation and watch millions of like minded people think it's great fun, if I didn't have any ethical issue with it.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Honestly I don't think Nadler is that strategic.
Congress has a constitutional duty to oversight. It's pretty open and shut and doesn't need to build a case. I first remember this with Sessions who was point blank asked if he was pleading the 5th or exerting EP, to which he responded no. When asked on what grounds he refused to answer he talked around it.
That was 2 years ago. We're dangerously close to setting a precedent for all future administrations. It's extremely dangerous ground.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I think goi need to hold four things
1 the presidency
2 the Senate
3 the supreme court
4 America and its laws in contempt
Gr00vus
Footballguy
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
That’s what impeachment proceedings are for. The rest is window dressing.
Bunch of chicken####s in the House. Stand up for something.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Plan B is getting Mueller to testify publicly. That’s the lynchpin. Once that happens (if it happens) it MIGHT change public opinion. If it does, that will cause some Republicans to break and then you can proceed.
But if either Mueller is prevented from testifying, or he doesn’t sufficiently criticize Trump, or his testimony doesn’t change any minds- then yeah the Democrats should basically call it quits and try to beat Trump in the election over healthcare and climate change. I’m not happy about this but I’m trying to be realistic.
yak651
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
It does look like Dems are on the verge of obstructing justice by attacking Barr who has pledged to get to the bottom of how the Mueller investigation started.
timschochet
Footballguy
Do you believe that if the White House tries to prevent McGahn or Mueller from testifying that’s perfectly OK?
I'm no expert at all on executive privilege.
But just going by how more conventional privileges ordinarily work, directing McGahn not to comply while not formally invoking the privilege should not work. Once executive privilege is formally invoked, McGahn should wait until the courts resolve the issue before he produces anything. But if the privilege isn't invoked and if other accommodations aren't made between the committee and the White House, he should comply with the subpoena.
Regarding the privilege itself, I don't see how anything that is in the Mueller report can still be subject to privilege. Releasing information to the public is a pretty obvious waiver.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
This isn't about "beat Trump", it's about the precedents we're setting for how our government works. You can't allow this kind of thing to go unaddressed, directly - you can't defer and hope for a corrupt President to get voted out of office. That doesn't resolve anything. You leave the door wide open for someone as corrupt but more intelligent to take full advantage in another Presidency.
Also, the same #### that was being investigated, the #### Trump has obstructed justice to keep from being investigated, is still going on. So we're doing pretty much nothing to stop the same exact thing from happening again in the next election, which you're pinning all your hopes of correction on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Democrats can easily impeach. No need for red team compliance. Conviction, on the other hand, would need some help.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Is this a random comment or did you have something specific being done to block the search for the real killer?
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What’s the alternative? You’re pinning YOUR hopes on a guaranteed outcome: all the Democrats vote for, all the Republicans vote against, and impeachment fails. I would argue that such an outcome sets a worse precedent than doing nothing, and might do more damage to this nations’ institutions than any action or statement by Donald Trump.
A little. If you just mean asking him questions at a hearing then no, that is definitely for sure not even close to obstruction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I don't believe McGahn should testify since he already gave all information to Mueller. I am fine with Mueller testifying and I believe the White House will allow that.
The D in Democrats is looking more and more (D)esperate in my opinion.
Sand
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
How? How would coming to some kind of conclusion on obstruction and what the obstruction is trying to protect be more damaging than allowing it to continue unchecked? That's ridiculous. I don't care about the conviction vote, I want Congress to do their job, complete an investigation and apply appropriate oversight as needed. Just the hearings alone are worth it. Through them we'll have a complete picture of what happened and why, and we'll have people on record, irrefutably, who chose to do nothing about it. That means something. That's approaching transparency at least, even if enough corrupt politicians don't do the right thing after everything is out in the open.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Many knuckleheads are calling for Barr to resign. That is getting close to obstruction. They scared
Congress has separate oversight responsibilities. The fact that he's already provided info to the DOJ (Mueller) does not shield him from questioning by Congress. That's not how things have ever worked.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Wait, do you think that "calling for someone to resign" is the same as "forcing someone to resign"?
Calling for someone to resign is not obstruction.
Impeaching him for an improper purpose with a corrupt motive would be obstruction. Nobody's talking about doing that. If Barr is impeached, it will be for intentionally misleading Congress. That's a non-corrupt reason for impeaching him.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
