Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 10:08:57 GMT -5
Since partisan politics being put aside is a virtual impossibility, screw congress and impeachment. Ultimately, it's simple. A prez should have immunity for legitimate, official presidential actions and duties. Calling Georgia's SOS to persuade him to "find" 11thousand (nonexistent) votes doesn't qualify. Retaining (and hiding) govt documents, especially after being ordered by a court to return them, doesn't qualify. I think he’s got big problems with the Florida case. Haven’t heard of an immunity claim there, which is moot anyway as he was already out of office. I have always felt, and the legal experts I have heard also have stated that this is the case that concerns them. I did read in one of the stories this week about the prosecution hiding information from the defense that one of the things that they had hidden included comments on how the Presidential Records Act coverage could extend well beyond the end of the president's term. This is the case I think he could be found legitimately guilty of something, yet I doubt it will be of the severity they have charged.
|
|
OK, throw Trump in jail in 2022
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by arkon on Apr 27, 2024 10:38:22 GMT -5
Since partisan politics being put aside is a virtual impossibility, screw congress and impeachment. Ultimately, it's simple. A prez should have immunity for legitimate, official presidential actions and duties. Calling Georgia's SOS to persuade him to "find" 11thousand (nonexistent) votes doesn't qualify. Retaining (and hiding) govt documents, especially after being ordered by a court to return them, doesn't qualify. But then the blind ambition problem arises. Who decides if the president's call is asking the SOS to create the votes he needs or is it to ask them to continue until the votes he needs are discovered? Who determines if he is asking them to cheat or to be thorough? This option leaves a president, any president, too exposed. Doesn't matter. No president should be interfering, even inquiring about any state's election results...especially when he's a candidate.
|
|
It isn't enough to love Ohio State. You also have to hate m******n
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 27, 2024 11:07:47 GMT -5
Since partisan politics being put aside is a virtual impossibility, screw congress and impeachment. Ultimately, it's simple. A prez should have immunity for legitimate, official presidential actions and duties. Calling Georgia's SOS to persuade him to "find" 11thousand (nonexistent) votes doesn't qualify. Retaining (and hiding) govt documents, especially after being ordered by a court to return them, doesn't qualify. But then the blind ambition problem arises. Who decides if the president's call is asking the SOS to create the votes he needs or is it to ask them to continue until the votes he needs are discovered? Who determines if he is asking them to cheat or to be thorough? This option leaves a president, any president, too exposed. He may very well dodge the legal bullet in the Georgia case. But, let’s assume upfront the call itself was proper. Not going to get into the contents at this point. If that call was even going to be made, should come from staff, not the head guy. That’s just basic management skills. And it keeps the head guy at arm’s length, which, in a situation like this is exactly where you want to be.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 14:45:07 GMT -5
But then the blind ambition problem arises. Who decides if the president's call is asking the SOS to create the votes he needs or is it to ask them to continue until the votes he needs are discovered? Who determines if he is asking them to cheat or to be thorough? This option leaves a president, any president, too exposed. Doesn't matter. No president should be interfering, even inquiring about any state's election results...especially when he's a candidate. Who decides if it is interference or just covering all the bases? I don't think it is unreasonable to be calling to make sure every stone has been turned.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 14:45:49 GMT -5
But then the blind ambition problem arises. Who decides if the president's call is asking the SOS to create the votes he needs or is it to ask them to continue until the votes he needs are discovered? Who determines if he is asking them to cheat or to be thorough? This option leaves a president, any president, too exposed. He may very well dodge the legal bullet in the Georgia case. But, let’s assume upfront the call itself was proper. Not going to get into the contents at this point. If that call was even going to be made, should come from staff, not the head guy. That’s just basic management skills. And it keeps the head guy at arm’s length, which, in a situation like this is exactly where you want to be. I agree. But that is Trump being Trump.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 27, 2024 15:23:28 GMT -5
Rather than that, why not just hang the sword over the POTUS and use it to ensure he doesn't F-up and go south? By this you mean partial immunity? The problem with that is what we are seeing now. You have non-federal level officers like Fani Willis, Letitia James, and Alvin Bragg who can trump up charges to try to make a name for themselves. I know you will disagree with these specific examples but you have to admit option gives this potential. Why is that a problem? It creates a fear of later prosecution and could force a president to not proceed somewhere when he really should. I don't want to put a president in the position of worrying about his decisions and creating indecision when we need him to be decisive. Why not? I absolutely want him worrying if he'll end up in jail if he commits an illegal act. 100%. All the time. The President of the United States has dozens of lawyers to ferret out legality and illegality before he pulls the trigger on a decision and he damn well should be listening to them. If he makes illegal decisions while in office, that's on him. If he deliberately breaks the law, he should be prosecuted after he leaves office, or impeached, removed and charged immediately. Period. I honestly do not understand your position on this at all.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 27, 2024 15:34:05 GMT -5
But then the blind ambition problem arises. Who decides if the president's call is asking the SOS to create the votes he needs or is it to ask them to continue until the votes he needs are discovered? Who determines if he is asking them to cheat or to be thorough? This option leaves a president, any president, too exposed. He may very well dodge the legal bullet in the Georgia case. But, let’s assume upfront the call itself was proper. Not going to get into the contents at this point. If that call was even going to be made, should come from staff, not the head guy. That’s just basic management skills. And it keeps the head guy at arm’s length, which, in a situation like this is exactly where you want to be. Had Trump been more diplomatic, I think the call passes muster. Had he said something like, "In a close election, it is my duty as POTUS to ensure that all vote tallies are as accurate as we can make them. Are you absolutely certain your count is accurate? Is there no possibility that you are off by 11,871 votes?", then it at least SOUNDS official. But what he did, how he said it, "...I need to find...", doesn't cut it...at all...and with the added veiled threat of possible punitive, retaliatory federal prosecution if GA officials didn't 'find the votes', I think he crossed the line. Add to that his staff drafting up a false letter claiming that the federal government had found evidence of fraud in GA, the tampering with voting machines by his minions and the propaganda campaign of smearing officials and poll workers, IMO, it's a bridge waaaaay too far to escape scrutiny from the GA AG.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 27, 2024 16:32:30 GMT -5
He may very well dodge the legal bullet in the Georgia case. But, let’s assume upfront the call itself was proper. Not going to get into the contents at this point. If that call was even going to be made, should come from staff, not the head guy. That’s just basic management skills. And it keeps the head guy at arm’s length, which, in a situation like this is exactly where you want to be. I agree. But that is Trump being Trump. I get that, but Trump being Trump often makes things more difficult than they need to be.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 27, 2024 17:28:56 GMT -5
He may very well dodge the legal bullet in the Georgia case. But, let’s assume upfront the call itself was proper. Not going to get into the contents at this point. If that call was even going to be made, should come from staff, not the head guy. That’s just basic management skills. And it keeps the head guy at arm’s length, which, in a situation like this is exactly where you want to be. Had Trump been more diplomatic, I think the call passes muster. Had he said something like, "In a close election, it is my duty as POTUS to ensure that all vote tallies are as accurate as we can make them. Are you absolutely certain your count is accurate? Is there no possibility that you are off by 11,871 votes?", then it at least SOUNDS official. But what he did, how he said it, "...I need to find...", doesn't cut it...at all...and with the added veiled threat of possible punitive, retaliatory federal prosecution if GA officials didn't 'find the votes', I think he crossed the line. Add to that his staff drafting up a false letter claiming that the federal government had found evidence of fraud in GA, the tampering with voting machines by his minions and the propaganda campaign of smearing officials and poll workers, IMO, it's a bridge waaaaay too far to escape scrutiny from the GA AG. Maybe on your diplomatic comment….frankly, don’t know for sure and haven’t really dug into the Georgia case all that much. IMO, though, it’s just plain stupid for him to make that call himself.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 17:50:50 GMT -5
By this you mean partial immunity? The problem with that is what we are seeing now. You have non-federal level officers like Fani Willis, Letitia James, and Alvin Bragg who can trump up charges to try to make a name for themselves. I know you will disagree with these specific examples but you have to admit option gives this potential. Why is that a problem? It creates a fear of later prosecution and could force a president to not proceed somewhere when he really should. I don't want to put a president in the position of worrying about his decisions and creating indecision when we need him to be decisive. Why not? I absolutely want him worrying if he'll end up in jail if he commits an illegal act. 100%. All the time. The President of the United States has dozens of lawyers to ferret out legality and illegality before he pulls the trigger on a decision and he damn well should be listening to them. If he makes illegal decisions while in office, that's on him. If he deliberately breaks the law, he should be prosecuted after he leaves office, or impeached, removed and charged immediately. Period. I honestly do not understand your position on this at all. If you have a decision that is not pressing and can wait hours days, or more, for attorneys to analyze all the ramifications, perhaps that is a point. Even then, you put two or more attorneys on a problem and you are likely to get two or more opinions and we are back to the start. Then we have a situation that requires a president to act immediately. This is why I said I don't want indecision in the Oval Office. Simply put, we elect a president to be able to make snap decisions. Sometimes you just have to put your faith in him to do so. You already have rules in effect regarding enriching himself in office. I'd imagine somewhere there is something on killing American citizens. If we get a bad president, like we find ourselves with today, you just have to hunker down and wait for the next election.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 18:22:10 GMT -5
He may very well dodge the legal bullet in the Georgia case. But, let’s assume upfront the call itself was proper. Not going to get into the contents at this point. If that call was even going to be made, should come from staff, not the head guy. That’s just basic management skills. And it keeps the head guy at arm’s length, which, in a situation like this is exactly where you want to be. Had Trump been more diplomatic, I think the call passes muster. Had he said something like, "In a close election, it is my duty as POTUS to ensure that all vote tallies are as accurate as we can make them. Are you absolutely certain your count is accurate? Is there no possibility that you are off by 11,871 votes?", then it at least SOUNDS official. But what he did, how he said it, "...I need to find...", doesn't cut it...at all...and with the added veiled threat of possible punitive, retaliatory federal prosecution if GA officials didn't 'find the votes', I think he crossed the line. Add to that his staff drafting up a false letter claiming that the federal government had found evidence of fraud in GA, the tampering with voting machines by his minions and the propaganda campaign of smearing officials and poll workers, IMO, it's a bridge waaaaay too far to escape scrutiny from the GA AG. Well, he did say he needed to find, I think 11K votes, after discussing the numbers and what they were upset about for some time. I read the entire transcript and one, don't see that as telling the SOS he needed to find those numbers. He was just reiterating that those were the numbers they actually needed to flip the state back to red. Second, please either post the transcript with highlights or cut and paste where he threatened possible punitive or retaliatory federal prosecution because I don't see it in the transcript. Full Transcript of Trump Call
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 18:23:27 GMT -5
I agree. But that is Trump being Trump. I get that, but Trump being Trump often makes things more difficult than they need to be. Ain't that the truth. Why he even got on the call I don't know. Most would, as previously noted, have let the attorneys handle it. But Trump.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 27, 2024 19:22:30 GMT -5
Had Trump been more diplomatic, I think the call passes muster. Had he said something like, "In a close election, it is my duty as POTUS to ensure that all vote tallies are as accurate as we can make them. Are you absolutely certain your count is accurate? Is there no possibility that you are off by 11,871 votes?", then it at least SOUNDS official. But what he did, how he said it, "...I need to find...", doesn't cut it...at all...and with the added veiled threat of possible punitive, retaliatory federal prosecution if GA officials didn't 'find the votes', I think he crossed the line. Add to that his staff drafting up a false letter claiming that the federal government had found evidence of fraud in GA, the tampering with voting machines by his minions and the propaganda campaign of smearing officials and poll workers, IMO, it's a bridge waaaaay too far to escape scrutiny from the GA AG. Well, he did say he needed to find, I think 11K votes, after discussing the numbers and what they were upset about for some time. I read the entire transcript and one, don't see that as telling the SOS he needed to find those numbers. He was just reiterating that those were the numbers they actually needed to flip the state back to red. Second, please either post the transcript with highlights or cut and paste where he threatened possible punitive or retaliatory federal prosecution because I don't see it in the transcript. Full Transcript of Trump CallTrump to Raffensberger: "And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."and BTW, re-reading that transcript was a painful experience and reminded me how totally unhinged Trump is, and worse, how everyone around him just feeds the stupid and goes along with the craziness. That such a person ever get within miles of the big desk in the Oval Office is just astonishing. Virtually nothing he said was true. It was total bullshit.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 20:12:00 GMT -5
Well, he did say he needed to find, I think 11K votes, after discussing the numbers and what they were upset about for some time. I read the entire transcript and one, don't see that as telling the SOS he needed to find those numbers. He was just reiterating that those were the numbers they actually needed to flip the state back to red. Second, please either post the transcript with highlights or cut and paste where he threatened possible punitive or retaliatory federal prosecution because I don't see it in the transcript. Full Transcript of Trump CallTrump to Raffensberger: "And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."and BTW, re-reading that transcript was a painful experience and reminded me how totally unhinged Trump is, and worse, how everyone around him just feeds the stupid and goes along with the craziness. That such a person ever get within miles of the big desk in the Oval Office is just astonishing. Virtually nothing he said was true. It was total bullshit. Yeah, I just don't see a threat there. He's making a point that what they think took place is illegal. As for how you feel about him as president, that's how I feel about Biden, times ten.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Apr 27, 2024 22:31:55 GMT -5
I would not want to be one of those deciding this issue. IMHO, no immunity at all leads to this kind of sewer politics we are experiencing now. Likewise, total immunity could easily remove some necessary caution as there are no consequences. And partial opens up a whole bag of problems. I'd say the Congress and impeachment is the answer but this would require partisan politics to be put aside. Since partisan politics being put aside is a virtual impossibility, screw congress and impeachment. Ultimately, it's simple. A prez should have immunity for legitimate, official presidential actions and duties. Calling Georgia's SOS to persuade him to "find" 11thousand (nonexistent) votes doesn't qualify. Retaining (and hiding) govt documents, especially after being ordered by a court to return them, doesn't qualify. So asking for a recount in a presidential election is a crime? Why wasn't al Gore prosecuted after the 2000 election? If the agency responsible for federal documents lets some former presidents keep documents for years, why are they prosecuting someone for doing the same?
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|