The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[Kutnupe14]

Dershowitz.

Are we picking and choosing the things we agree with that Dershowitz says, or are we saying he's right all the time? If the latter, I got some gems for ya.

 

[jamil]

More confident than that he hasn't done something. Hey has the president implemented the sanctions congress passed a while ago yet on Russia?

Is that a crime? I’d kinda like the POTUS to follow the law. I wanted Obama to. Trump wouldn’t be the first president not to implement a law he didn’t like. But that’s up to Congress or voters to do something about. That one’s beyond the scope of DoJ.

 

[Alpo]

Google “capital of israel”. As of this writing it says “Jerusalem”. If we move our embassy to Jerusalem, all we’re doing is acknowledging what Israel has declaired. Saying it’s not our business what city we recognize as the capital of Israel is as silly whether we move our embassy to Jerusalem or leave it in Tel Aviv. Granted, there is significant controversy. Not all Israelis agree. Not even within their own government.

It’s definitely a political move. And there’ll be some political consequences if we move the embassy. But the world will not end if we make the move.

So say you.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 1949 UN Resolution and the U.S. Memorandum re Jerusalem dated May 31, 1962. I quote in part:

Our position, as frequently stated, is: "the status of Jerusalem is a matter of United Nations concern and no member of the United Nations should take any action to prejudice the United Nations interest in this question. Our objective has been to keep the Jerusalem question an open one and to prevent its being settled solely through the processes of attrition and fait accompli to the exclusion of international interest and an eventual final expression thereof presumably through the United Nations."

It is an idiotic move, much like putting his son-in-law in charge of the Middle East peace process.

These people are dimwits.

 

[Fargo]

Is that the standard that other people are held? And by the way if you commit "obstruction of justice," they have broken the law.

Couple of thoughts, as he is the chief executive there are a much more limited set of circumstances that he could be considered to be obstructing justice under than a person who is not vested with the sole authority to side what executive actions should be taken. It is the same principle as any prosecutorial discretion. It's just like how it was perfectly legal for Lee Buckingham to stop a prosecution, while it would be unlawful for other people to attempt to do the same. In that sense, the subset of how he could obstruct justice is much more limited than the term generally means.

Secondly, he is not subject to the normal prosecutorial process, but rather the impeachment process laid out in the constitution. This is a two edged sword, because Congress is not required to apply some strict reading of a statute, but can generally consider a much broader definition of high crimes and misdemeanors based upon the meaning of those words had at the time they were ratified.

There seems to be a current obsession with obstruction of justice, apparently based upon the Nixon articles. I would point out that it is very important to keep in mind what they were referring to in those articles, specifically directing the intelligence agencies to lie and say that the Whitewater burglary it was a national security operation so as to prevent an FBI investigation. They were not using the term in the Nixon articles in the strict atatutory sense, but in a very specific sense based upon what the president was doing.

 

[jamil]

So say you.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 1949 UN Resolution and the U.S. Memorandum re Jerusalem dated May 31, 1962. I quote in part:



It is an idiotic move, much like putting his son-in-law in charge of the Middle East peace process.

These people are dimwits.

Positions change. It was the US position then. And it’s only the UN. They’re nobody.

And it’s not that I disagree with you on how wise it is to move our embassy. I’m just saying it’s silly to say it isn’t our business.

 

[jamil]

Are we picking and choosing the things we agree with that Dershowitz says, or are we saying he's right all the time? If the latter, I got some gems for ya.

I don’t agree with Dershowitz on a lot of things. But here’s a leftist anti Trump law expert saying the president has the authority to do what he did. He laid out his reasoning and his logic is convincing if you don’t have an irrational need for Trump to be guilty of something/anything.

 

[femurphy77]

The president needs to stay off Twitter. He's so dumb he's cooking his own goose. It's like he's asking to be charged with obstruction.

Boy, there's an understatement!

 

[Alpo]

Positions change. It was the US position then. And it’s only the UN. They’re nobody.

And it’s not that I disagree with you on how wise it is to move our embassy. I’m just saying it’s silly to say it isn’t our business.

There is always room on that partially populated string of Christmas lights.

So, all of those presidents since 1962 are silly. Good luck with that 5 speed to the rear unicycle.

 

[Route 45]

FBI agent fired from Russia probe oversaw Flynn interviews, softened Comey language on Clinton email actions | Fox News

 

[jamil]

There is always room on that partially populated string of Christmas lights.

So, all of those presidents since 1962 are silly. Good luck with that 5 speed to the rear unicycle.

I think you are confusing some things. We didn’t decide on the former policy for the reason that it’s not our business where we put our embassy or what city we recognize as Israel’s capital. It’s no less our business if we decide to recognize the capital Israel declares now. And since I had to reiterate that for you, I guess I should also reiterate that that doesn’t mean it’s wise to change the capital we recognize.

 

[Alpo]

FBI agent fired from Russia probe oversaw Flynn interviews, softened Comey language on Clinton email actions | Fox News

Kut scooped you. Post 1287.

 

[jamil]

FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation convinced Comey to change wording in Clinton investigation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." For me, that's a problem. It has no bearing in the Mueller investigation, but it does, IMO allow for the Clinton investigation to have a second look.

Yeah. Because grossly negligent fits the definition of a crime.

 

[Alpo]

I think you are confusing some things. We didn’t decide on the former policy for the reason that it’s not our business where we put our embassy or what city we recognize as Israel’s capital. It’s no less our business if we decide to recognize the capital Israel declares now. And since I had to reiterate that for you, I guess I should also reiterate that that doesn’t mean it’s wise to change the capital we recognize.

We attempted to act in accord with the United Nations, which we thought of at that time as very important as a safety valve in the Cold War and in regional conflicts.
We didn't feel it proper to act unilaterally. It is not in our interest.

I would expect Trump to say something as ridiculous as removing the Dome of the Rock so that the 3 Temple could be built in its stead. He's dumb enough to tweet something like that and start nukes flying all over the Levant.

 

[jamil]

We attempted to act in accord with the United Nations, which we thought of at that time as very important as a safety valve in the Cold War and in regional conflicts.
We didn't feel it proper to act unilaterally. It is not in our interest.

I would expect Trump to say something as ridiculous as removing the Dome of the Rock so that the 3 Temple could be built in its stead. He's dumb enough to tweet something like that and start nukes flying all over the Levant.

Okay. I don’t disagreeing with any of that.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Huh?

You don't start with a person and investigate until you find a crime to charge him with. You start with a crime and find out who committed it. Unless that person is trump, then you absurdly investigate everything about him and hope you find a crime, since your entire purpose is to impeach him since you lost an election, and the people can't be allowed to make such an important mistake

your statement was to the effect of "we don't know if he committed a crime because we're not done investigating him"

that ain't how it works

or perhaps you'd support a stop and frisk plan in high crime areas?

 

[Route 45]

You don't start with a person and investigate until you find a crime to charge him with. You start with a crime and find out who committed it. Unless that person is trump, then you absurdly investigate everything about him and hope you find a crime, since your entire purpose is to impeach him since you lost an election, and the people can't be allowed to make such an important mistake

your statement was to the effect of "we don't know if he committed a crime because we're not done investigating him"

that ain't how it works

or perhaps you'd support a stop and frisk plan in high crime areas?

Hey now, Driving While Trump is as good a reason for a traffic stop as any.

 

[Alpo]

Hey now, Driving While Trump is as good a reason for a traffic stop as any.

In some jurisdictions, this is a capital crime!

[video=youtube_share;3uZ7m_FhSoc]http://youtu.be/3uZ7m_FhSoc[/video]

 

[jamil]

You don't start with a person and investigate until you find a crime to charge him with. You start with a crime and find out who committed it. Unless that person is trump, then you absurdly investigate everything about him and hope you find a crime, since your entire purpose is to impeach him since you lost an election, and the people can't be allowed to make such an important mistake

your statement was to the effect of "we don't know if he committed a crime because we're not done investigating him"

that ain't how it works

or perhaps you'd support a stop and frisk plan in high crime areas?

This is purely a political thing. It’s like I posted yesterday, this is and was always about impeachment. What they charged Flynn with tells me, after all this time of investigations, they got nothing. So they’re getting what they can get. They got Flynn for lying about something that was political but not illegal. That means the only thing they got left to impeach Trump for is obstruction. And unless they dig up something else, they can’t get him on that either.

It looks to me like Kut’s just gonna have to wear a frown for the duration.

 

[jamil]

I take that back. They can impeach him for driving his golf cart on the green.

 

[Alpo]

I doubt that anything Trump has done to date will rise to the level of an impeachment proceeding in the House. That's not to say he can't screw up tomorrow, but I don't think any of his offenses prior to becoming president result in anything other than civil action, (if any).

I like the idea of having Mueller act as the bit in the Trump reins, though. It keeps him from doing something very stupid...which I'm absolutely certain he is capable of doing.