Printable View
The problem with Flynn is that if he's guilty of lying to the FBI it hardly makes him credible. Need a recorded conversation or some other physical evidence or its moot. And even if it isn't moot the partisan way the impeachment process works means Trump could be guilty as sin (like Clinton was) and still not get kicked out of office.
LOL at the 'but Clinton!' in there.
That's great.
I do wonder if the 'but he lied so he's not credible' line is something the GOP/Trump will try though.
One professor pointed out that one advantage of charging him with just lying is that, if Trump were to pardon him, they'd still be able bring a number of other charges against him later. He can issue a general pardon but that's both dodgy and costly and wouldn't cover crimes at the state level either.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
He could use his pardon power now. It would constitute obstruction of justice but he could do it.
But that's been true for a while (I might ahve indicated otherwise back when Trump pardoned Arpaio. If so I was wrong then, one of the differences between the federal pardon and the more local state one here in CA)
It depends what the terms of the plea agreement are. It would very likely come with an immunity agreement about what he was providing other testimony on. Of course, a pardon could itself violate the terms of such an immunity agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Lmao if Flynn gets pardoned and then has to try to politely turn it down :o
Just to clarify - Bill Clinton was beyond any shadow of a doubt guilty of perjury but was not found guilty by the senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
What was he perjuring himself about again?
Benghazi. Bleachbit!
He lied under oath about having sexual relations with Monica in a sexual harassment case Paula Jones had filed against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The time for a pardon would have been before the plea agreement. And yes, he could pardon at any time.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
That was it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And what's this Trump thing about again?
Supposedly collusion with Russia to influence an election. While it certainly wouldn't surprise me if elements of his campaign did I think its highly unlikely even he would have been that dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That being said, the point of bringing up Clinton was to show that in American politics impeachment has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Wrong Clinton, do try to keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That's quite a bit more serious than the Clinton thing, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Say, what was the name of the other chap who was impeached, or did he resign before they could impeach him?
Sure it was.Quote:
That being said, the point of bringing up Clinton was to show that in American politics impeachment has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Yes, I have read that rant before and I found it to be deeply flawed, unlike the other critique to which I linked. Most of the text consists of ranting about Abramson's character flaws, the existence of which I haven't disputed. His dissection of the problems with Abramson's #russiagate tweets misses the mark, however, perhaps because he apparently spent 10 minutes on Google for that part of the rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Abramson's been consistent about one thing: traditional news-media--whether cable or newspapers or established news sites--have, he believes, been much slower to report/highlight things about #russiagate that he believes are important. Instead, he says that this information has first to a great extent been spread by freelance journalists and independent "reporters" of various kinds on social media. He alleges that traditional news media has always been behind the curve, reporting important things very late. In light of that, it isn't sufficient to reference a NYT story published just before he posted a list of things where he feels news media were slow, because he contends that organizations like NYT were slow compared to others who reported it long before they did. This is of course a question of fact that can be verified or refuted, but Weindling does not do so. Frankly, I would be surprised if it were not as Abramson says. If his primary activity is to peddle disparate poorly contextualized or poorly sourced information--irrelevant information, rumours etc--floating around on social media, then he and others like him SHOULD be faster than traditional news media such as NYT, who may have to sit on information for a longer time until they can corroborate it based on reports from multiple reliable sources.
I find it surprising that, of all the substantive criticisms of Abramson's tweeting that you could've brought to this discussion, you settled for this, the least persuasive. Your posts suggest that you haven't read these threads, which is perhaps the reason why you keep posting these gotchas that you apparently think I wasn't aware of.
Speaking of gotchas, this was funny:
Quote:
Twitter Link
[...] No independent research that he does outside his job that he already (presumably) gets paid to do.
[...]
UPDATE: After publishing, Abramson reached out to Paste to clarify that he is not paid by either The Huffington Post or the Dallas Morning News.
I know which Clinton you meant. I was trying to help you update yourself on the current GOP line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Your example does not prove this statement. Guilt/innocence may have an influence on impeachment greater than zero without being sufficient all on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm surprised that you continue to stand up for someone who has repeatedly made shit up. Not as a one-off mistake, but consistently. Apparently, because you agree with the general most of what he says, you're willing to ignore the fact the guy peddles in lies and conspiracies.
Btw, "disgraceful" doesn't even begin to evil justice to the farce going on in the senate right now. A huge bill with hundreds of pages' worth of last-minute amendments consisting of special favours delivered as an un-searchable PDF with illegible nonsense scribbled all over it, to be voted on as quickly as possible by people who almost certainly have no damn' clue what they're voting for and who've either deliberately or through incompetence misled the public about the bill's contents (such as it was, because it was basically being workshopped in the Senate until a couple of hours ago). Guys, look, it may be the world's greatest deliberative body, but this is fucked up. Even Dread would have a hard time defending this while sober.
Incorrect. I told you previously that I take it for what it is. My objections to your criticism arise from my assessment that your criticism is flawed, not from a belief that Abramson is the prophet of prophets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You forgot obstruction of justice. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Can't let the perfect be the enemy of the 'good.' Good not being a good word for a lot of the nonsense going on in it but ultimately Republicans need to honor their pledge of cutting taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
He. Makes. Shit. Up. Which part of that are you missing? Can we not agree to not stoop to Trump's level? And actually rely on reputable sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Twitter Link
Way to degrade "honor", huh. :picard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Shocking mistake by ABC. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/01/medi...ion/index.html
There is a world of difference between Trump as candidate speaking to the Russians, and Trump as President-elect speaking to them.
I thought it was obvious Flynn's Russia-related stuff took place in December? Not sure where that story even came from.
Was certainly obvious to me. All news I read specifically mentioned this happened in December.
And while you could make a point it's not so bad for a transitioning team to act like that it raises the big question: why did the transition team lie about it (to reporters, to the public, to investigators and potentially under oath)?
Today, I'm very glad Twitter hasn't banned Trump, and that nobody's told him he has the right to remain silent.
And also, Steely... how 'bout her emails??
https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked...tion-for-trumpQuote:
In emails obtained by the New York Times, transition advisor K.T. McFarland sought to coordinate with other members of the Trump transition team in the wake of sanctions intended to punish the Kremlin for interfering in the U.S. presidential election. “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him."
Yes, that's the one. Unfortunately reported out of context though
E-mails will doom us all.
Trumps lawyer is supposed to have authored the tweet where he incriminated himself some more.
Obligatory:
https://49.media.tumblr.com/ee33240c...r0y2o1_250.gif
I'm pretty sure at this point Trump can't incriminate himself because its obvious he makes shit up as he goes along. ;)
Back on the topic of North Korea:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/03/asia/n...ntl/index.html
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Sentence could work for whichever sides officials you like.Quote:
Officials think deterrence unlikely to work v a madman.
True :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Others have argued that NK's leadership isn't as irrational as it's made out to be, but the key question is what US officials believe about their enemy.
Honestly, I'd bet on Kim Jong Un to be the more rational actor here: he has a far higher chance of ending up dead or out of power as a result of any NK/US war. Trump will feel no consequences whatsoever.
A former American official visited North Korea recently and the main question he was asked was whether Trump is insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint