Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    No, Nixons involvment wasn't absolutely indisputable, which is why he wasn't impeached until his firing of the Atty General and the Special Prosecutor.
    At the time of Nixon's "Saturday night massacre", his direct involvement in the crime and the subsequent cover-up was well established and indisputable, including testimony from a number of firsthand witnesses and tape recordings of Nixon himself. There is little doubt that he would have been impeached whether he had fired people or not. That act just moved the timetable up.

    Contrast that with current circumstances where Democrats are rushing towards impeachment but still haven't figured out what crime Trump is supposed to have committed. In fact, Jerry Nadler is desperately clinging to the narrative that a president can be impeached without ever breaking the law!

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-breaking-law/
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      At the time of Nixon's "Saturday night massacre", his direct involvement in the crime and the subsequent cover-up was well established and indisputable, including testimony from a number of firsthand witnesses and tape recordings of Nixon himself. There is little doubt that he would have been impeached whether he had fired people or not. That act just moved the timetable up.

      Contrast that with current circumstances where Democrats are rushing towards impeachment but still haven't figured out what crime Trump is supposed to have committed. In fact, Jerry Nadler is desperately clinging to the narrative that a president can be impeached without ever breaking the law!

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-breaking-law/
      You mean, the focus groups haven't quite come to his rescue yet? NOBODY needed focus groups in the Nixon impeachment process - it was absolutely clear to all that there was a major problem on the planet.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        You mean, the focus groups haven't quite come to his rescue yet? NOBODY needed focus groups in the Nixon impeachment process - it was absolutely clear to all that there was a major problem on the planet.
        I would say that is more a consequence of the polarization of our political process and the compromise of principle that pervades the blind support of Doanald Trump. We are no longer the rational, principled people we were when Nixon committed his crime. And it is my contention that had a president done what Donald Trump has done in 1970, the clamor for impeachment would have been nearly 100%, across both isles, with public protests demanding his ouster filling city streets across the country.

        And the fact the debates have taken the tack they have in public and on this web site is an indication of how far have we fallen.

        The reality is the access Hollywood tapes alone would have made Trump unelectable in 1970
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-08-2019, 09:38 AM.
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          And it is my contention that had a president done what Donald Trump has done in 1970, the clamor for impeachment would have been nearly 100%, across both isles, with public protests demanding his ouster filling city streets across the country.
          Of course you think that, and conveniently, this is another one of those claims that is impossible to prove or disprove.

          The problem for the Democrats is that from the day they started investigating Trump until now, not a single crime has been uncovered that leads back to the President. Now they're saying that a president can be impeached for legal acts done with the "wrong" motives!
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Of course you think that, and conveniently, this is another one of those claims that is impossible to prove or disprove.
            'conveniently' implies a purposed manipulation making the claim. Leaving that word out would cast no aspersions on the writer and still makes the same point. Why do you feel the need to add that negative ad hominem element to your replies?

            As for the comment itself. Trumps antics would never have been tolerated in 1970, but it is also true Trump would have had to be much less of a loose cannon in order to even get elected. Nevertheless, asking the Russians or China to help get dirt on an opponent, publicly? You think that would have been tolerated in 1970? You know that would never have been accepted from a person in office at that time, let alone ignored by the majority of the GOP. Those were not times when such clearly treasonous words could have been spoken by a polititian, let alone have secret meetings with Russian lawyers in the hopes of getting dirt, or setting up - as a candidate- a 'back channel to a Russian leader. Such things - in that day - would mean traitor, betrayor, spy, or worse.

            And they should still mean it today.

            The problem for the Democrats is that from the day they started investigating Trump until now, not a single crime has been uncovered that leads back to the President. Now they're saying that a president can be impeached for legal acts done with the "wrong" motives!
            'Not a single crime' is absurdly inaccurate MM. Obstruction is illegal. The receipt of Emoluments is prohibited by the constitution. Quid pro Quo not on behalf of the US (for personal gain only - i.e. abuse of the power of his offfic) is either illegal or likewise unconstitutional. And holding up the Congressionally allocated funds apart from some very limited exceptions, none of which include the manipulation of a foreign government for personal gain.

            Trump is basically out of control, giving the finger to our laws and the responsibilities and limitations of his office and daring someone to stop him. Not stopping him gives the next presidency license to do the same.


            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-08-2019, 11:57 AM.
            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              'conveniently' implies a purposed manipulation making the claim. Leaving that word out would cast no aspersions on the writer and still makes the same point. Why do you feel the need to add that negative ad hominem element to your replies?




              This is absurd MM. Obstruction is illegal. The receipt of Emoluments is prohibited by the constitution. Quid pro Quo not on behalf of the US (for personal gain only - i.e. abuse of the power of his offfic) is either illegal or likewise unconstitutional. And holding up the Congressionally allocated funds apart from some very limited exceptions, none of which include the manipulation of a foreign government for personal gain.

              Trump is basically out of control, giving the finger to our laws and the responsibilities and limitations of his office and daring someone to stop him. Not stopping him gives the next presidency license to do the same.


              Jim
              This is just more spin. If the case against Trump is solid then why are the Democrats pushing the idea that a president can be impeached without ever committing a crime?

              The following is required reading for anybody who wants to know how weak the case against Trump really is:

              https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-breaking-law/
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?
                It is never okay to get the basic facts in a story wrong.

                But there are other issues here, running from the legal to the political. On the legal side, Nunes has a better chance of winning a lawsuit against his cow. It's a high bar for any public figure, and for political figures, it's even higher. You can't repeatedly refuse to correct the record across the course of a month and then claim deliberate malice when CNN gives up and runs with the story they've got. On the political side, his endless attempts to make mommy fix it are making him look less like a winner than a whiner.

                I read the filing, just btw, looking for how he came up with his figure for damages. Five significant digits, so I expected there'd be a detailed accounting.

                Yeah, right.

                Comment


                • It seems CNN didn't even do basic due diligence by comparing the claims to Nunes' publicly available travel itinerary, although I suppose, "It was not malice but incompetence, your honor," just might stand up in court as a valid defense.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    You mean, the focus groups haven't quite come to his rescue yet? NOBODY needed focus groups in the Nixon impeachment process - it was absolutely clear to all that there was a major problem on the planet.
                    Nope, there were many people during the Nixon impeachment who just like you, MM, rogue, OBP etc, were suffering from cognitive dissonance, tribalsim, ignorance or just plain stupidity right up until Nixon finally resigned. More than likely you were in that mix, CP! I'll bet you probably still think Nixon should never have been impeached.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Nope, there were many people during the Nixon impeachment who just like you, MM, rogue, OBP etc, were suffering from cognitive dissonance, tribalsim, ignorance or just plain stupidity right up until Nixon finally resigned. More than likely you were in that mix, CP! I'll bet you probably still think Nixon should never have been impeached.
                      Jim, you are so full of crap. I have CLEARLY said Nixon should have been impeached. At the time, it was OBVIOUS, because there was an actual UNDENIABLE CRIME, and it was clear that it was getting connected directly to Nixon.

                      When you don't have facts or truth on your side, you resort to this juvenile nonsense baseless attack crap, and only show yourself for what you are.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Jim, you are so full of crap. I have CLEARLY said Nixon should have been impeached. At the time, it was OBVIOUS, because there was an actual UNDENIABLE CRIME, and it was clear that it was getting connected directly to Nixon.
                        I defended Nixon.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Investigation into an alleged crime is an investigation, obstruction of that investigation is a crime.
                          Er, what?

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            It seems CNN didn't even do basic due diligence by comparing the claims to Nunes' publicly available travel itinerary, although I suppose, "It was not malice but incompetence, your honor," just might stand up in court as a valid defense.
                            CNN's gotta CNN.
                            Even reporters have left me. Savannah Guthrie, she has left the White House press corps to host the Today show. Norah O’Donnell left the briefing room to host CBS This Morning. Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN.

                            Speaking of Jake, I saw a clip with him on Bill Maher that I'm having trouble pulling up, but is still seared into my brain. Maher introduced Tapper saying he had the perfect porn star name, and Tapper swatted it back with a comment, "I'm impressed you're familiar with my earlier work." It should go without saying that he's not clever enough to deliver a comeback like that on the spur of the moment. He consented to that line from Maher.

                            Parnas has pretty well screwed himself over on this one. He's obviously angling for immunity and making up stories as he goes along, that being what he'd done with better success in his travels with Giuliani. I expected better from his lawyer though. You let your lawyer speak for you to prevent this kind of damage, not to cause it. CNN's actual defense is that they cited his lawyer accurately. But given who he was representing, that's no excuse for failing to fact check the lawyer.

                            If you check their efforts to get a reaction from Nunes, you won't hear them asking if he'd taken a trip to Vienna, they ask what he did there. That's not citing the lawyer.

                            But if CNN was less than careful vetting their sources and their motivations, Nunes is not the guy I'd pick for my "can throw stones freely" team. He's been defending himself by citing denials from Furman, the other guy working with Giuliani on his Ukraine scam. Lay down with dogs, and you show up on their call logs.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Er, what?
                              Nestled inside there, hanging on for dear life, is a coherent thought.
                              [O]bstruction of [an] investigation is a crime.

                              Which is all beside the point, anyway. This soon-to-be-impeachment is about abuse of power, and in particular, about an abuse of power pairing Trump's personal political interest and the Russian national interest against our national interest paired with the Ukrainian national interest in rooting out corruption in their justice system and resisting Russia's incursions into Crimea and the Donbass region.

                              Yes, obstructing an investigation is a crime, but there are more than a thousand prosecutors publicly lined up to handle the obstruction charges as soon as he's out of office. That's soon enough for me, if it weren't for the continuing corrosion at Justice and State.

                              But if there's no underlying crime, that kind of prosecution is too much for my taste like the "resisting arrest" arrests with no crime to justify the arrest that was being resisted, not to say there aren't qualitative differences between obstructing a local cop and a well respected (and unquestionably conservative) former FBI director.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                Er, what?
                                There is plenty of evidence of the underlying crime that's alleged of the subject, i.e. of Trump, but obstructing Congress from investigating that alleged crime is a crime in and of itself. It also points to the consciousness of guilt in the subject. If it were a typical citizen, he'd have been arrested and charged with obstruction. How is it that you Trumpsters can be so dumb as to not understand why Trump has been obstructing in every which way he can for years now?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:50 AM
                                8 responses
                                117 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-16-2021, 04:20 PM
                                59 responses
                                443 views
                                5 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 01-16-2021, 09:35 AM
                                8 responses
                                92 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-15-2021, 06:39 PM
                                18 responses
                                161 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-15-2021, 02:30 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X