General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 648

Like Dexter?

Okay, I change what I said. Trump is literal Dr. Evil

 

Two previous cities I lived have complete bans on Uber or any ride-sharing services (either by needing a taxi license or needing a physical office in the city). This clamp down Needs to spread

 

Watching the pee tape together

 

Yeah but unfortunately an impeachment conviction would require enough GOP senators to essentially vote that Comey is more credible than their Dear Leader, right? It's he said-he said at this point becuase they were always the only ones in the room. That's still going to be tough to convince enough of them to do, which is outrageous.

 

I'm not saying it'll happen. I'm saying it should.

 

I wish I was as worked about about the Comey testimony as you guys are now...to me that says a whole lotta not much and expectations for tomorrow were too high. I guess it depends on lines of questioning and all that but...bleh. Not too happy that Trump's "not under investigation 3 separate times" thing is true.

 

No I know, I edited my original post a bit to better reflect the tone I was going for.

 

Trump could've told Comey "Putin is blackmailing me, I love hooker pee and there's nothing wrong with that, can we just lift the sanctions and I'll golf for four years while Pence electrocutes poor people?"

And the GOP would be like 'wow, how could you do this the media.'

 

With 93% of the vote

http://www.theroot.com/jxnrising-chokwe-antar-lumumba-wins-jackson-miss-ma-1795875297

 

It confirms basically everything we already knew, under oath ... which is ... IMO ... grounds for impeachment. I think that's pretty big.

 

Can anyone compel Trump to testify in front of the same committee? Or get him under oath in any way?

 

Nope.

Executive privilege - Wikipedia

 

i don't think it's going to be the single damning thing that gets him impeached, but the fact that we knew pretty much everything in this is just what was needed. Everything thus far ahs been "sources say", even about what Comey would actually say. And this is just 100% confirming and legitimizing the things that have been "revealed by sources"

 

I was going to add that I thought Ray Liotta played the FBI director in the one with Julianne Moore whose brains were literally eaten by Lector but I looked up and he was in the DOJ

 

Republicans and the people surrounding Trump should be smart enough to keep him away from being under oath.

 

wouldn't it also be protected by the fifth amendment, or does that go out the window in this case?

 

lol

 

what you mean all the stuff that was Fake News ?

 

I mean, the 5th amendment is still a thing. He just would never have to go appear in front of a committee like this in the first place. He would just ignore any subpoena they sent to him under E.P.

 

How did Clinton get popped for lying under oath?

 

IIRC, he testified to a grand jury, by his own choice, after the request from special prosecutor (and then we got rid of the law that allows or creates what Ken Starr was).

Edit: From that Wiki link:

Later, Clinton exercised a form of negotiated executive privilege when he agreed to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear. Declaring that "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.

 

So (ignoring subpoenas) EP allows him to not have to go in front of the committee, but it's the fifth and not EP that allows him to remain silent?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but that would be my understanding of how the arguments would be laid out. Now, we could go all the way up to the S.C. ... which has happened with E.P. in the past:

United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia


But I doubt we'll be so lucky.

 

RE Ken Starr:

The prosecutor, who was appointed by a special panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, could investigate allegations of any misconduct, with an unlimited budget and no deadline, and could be dismissed only by the Attorney General for "good cause" or by the special panel of the court when the independent counsel's task was completed. As the president could not dismiss those investigating the executive branch it was felt that the independence of the office would ensure impartiality of any reports presented to Congress. However, there have been many critics of this law including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.[1] Many argued the new Independent Counsel's office was a sort of "fourth branch" of government that had virtually unlimited powers and was answerable to no one. However, the constitutionality of the new office was ultimately upheld in the 1988 Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson.

And:

Eventually, the law establishing the independent counsel expired at midnight on June 30, 1999.

 

It does kinda feel like we're on a collision course for a constitutional crisis of some kind though, right? Like something's gonna happen that's unprecedented.