*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf: Check the link in this post for a timeline of what this is about.
Sorry to nest a link in a link, but I'm sick and lazy.
(oh, and I pretty much blame you for me being sick, since you show up here and within hours I have a cold. Jerkface.)


I still agree with you that Trump dodges bullets better than Neo. It's still premature to talk impeachment on a serious level.

The facts appear to be:
1) Trump kept saying stuff like "You guys are cracking down on corruption. You should check out Biden." over and over. His guys talking to Ukrain's Pres's guys in multiple meetings saying to investigate Biden.
2) Congress gives $400 M in aide to Ukraine and a week before it's delivered, Trump puts a hold on it. AFAIK, no one close to Trump knows why he did this. I.e. he didn't tell anyone why he did that. That doesn't mean there's no alibi, but it would sure help his case if he had given a single good reason for doing so to anyone close to him.


Here's the question. Are those 2 things directly related?

It's perfectly legal for Trump to encourage anyone anywhere to investigate anyone anywhere.
It is perfectly legal for Trump to put a hold on taxpayer approved international aid.
It is perfectly legal for Trump to use taxpayer money to investigate threats to national security.
BUT,
It is treason for Trump to use this money (by withholding it to apply pressure) for personal gain.


***
I mean... I guess we already got our answer. Wuf isn't even paying attention. He simply presumes the negative things said about Trump are fake news.

I don't think that represents all "intelligent Rep voters," but I'd wager it represents a significant proportion if not a majority.

[Poopadoop]

It's perfectly legal for Trump to encourage anyone anywhere to investigate anyone anywhere.

I think this needs qualification though. He can't encourage people to investigate someone for his personal gain. And especially not a foreign power.

Not saying he's the first one to do it, he's just the first one to do it so blatantly as to get caught.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think this needs qualification though. He can't encourage people to investigate someone for his personal gain. And especially not a foreign power.

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

What he can't do is use US national resources for non-national gains. I.e. he cannot use taxpayer money to dig up dirt on his political rivals, whether or not any foreign nation is involved.

Not saying he's the first one to do it, he's just the first one to do it so blatantly as to get caught.

He's not technically been caught at anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

[Poopadoop]

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

Well he did tell Russia to go find Hillary's emails and nothing happened. So yeah, I guess he can.

It confuses me though because I've heard that you can't accept help from a foreign power in an election. Presumably the same goes if you're an incumbent looking for dirt on your opponent. I'm not sure I understand where the lines get drawn here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well he did tell Russia to go find Hillary's emails and nothing happened. So yeah, I guess he can.

It confuses me though because I've heard that you can't accept help from a foreign power in an election. Presumably the same goes if you're an incumbent looking for dirt on your opponent. I'm not sure I understand where the lines get drawn here.

I think you're right. That exposes an assumption I had made, but not stated.

Violating election law is not the same as treason, and I was talking about treason.

[Poopadoop]

I think you're right. That exposes an assumption I had made, but not stated.

Violating election law is not the same as treason, and I was talking about treason.

But treason is giving aid to an enemy power in a time of war. So I don't think what he's done this time is treason. He's still working his way up to that lol.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But treason is giving aid to an enemy power in a time of war. So I don't think what he's done this time is treason. He's still working his way up to that lol.

Hmm..
Had to look it up. found this

Article III, Section III of the US Constitution says this:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

So you're probably right. It'd be a stretch to call this, "giving aid and comfort" to an enemy of the US.

...
Then what is the law he's supposedly breaking? Is it a constitutional law? Some legal precedent?

[MadMojoMonkey]

WTF?
This is all just a campaign finance law violation?

Just shoot me now. He's not gonna get impeached over campaign finance, guys.
C'mon, guys.
Just...
c'mon

[oskar]

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

What he can't do is use US national resources for non-national gains. I.e. he cannot use taxpayer money to dig up dirt on his political rivals, whether or not any foreign nation is involved.


He's not technically been caught at anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

Dems are handling this horribly. Throw Hunter Biden under the bus! Of course the little shit got the job because his last name is Biden. Of course the company hired him because they were hoping for favors from the Vice President... How dumb do you think your voters are? Why are they even trying to deny that? Everyone knows how that works.

Current situation seems to be that the white house will not recognize impeachment as a thing. So it'll go to the Supreme court which will then decide if you still have a democracy. Fun times, huh?

[Poopadoop]

Current situation seems to be that the white house will not recognize impeachment as a thing.

And by doing so they're obstructing congress and/or justice depending on who you ask.

No-one even takes that stance seriously, everyone can see it's just a delaying tactic.

[Poopadoop]

He's not technically been caught convicted of anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

He's definitely been caught.

If you have videotape of someone committing a murder AND he's id'd by a bunch of witnesses AND he has his fingerprints all over the gun, he's been caught. The conviction is a mere formality of law. Though more complicated in this case obviously because politics.

[wufwugy]

I mean... I guess we already got our answer. Wuf isn't even paying attention. He simply presumes the negative things said about Trump are fake news.

Even the positive things about Trump are fake news.

More specifically, I integrate the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect into everything I hear from people whose expertise is storytelling.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even the positive things about Trump are fake news.

I didn't mean that as a negative.
FFS, I've been trying to follow this and I thought what they were saying is that it was treason to use national assets for personal gain.
It's not.

If the dots connect, and it's not 100%, then all he's done is violate election finance "law." Law is in quotes because technically election finance rules are laws, but the thing is that they're rarely enforced. They're more guidelines than laws in practice.

Pickles on the window was a colorful and apt metaphor.

More specifically, I integrate the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect into everything I hear from people whose expertise is storytelling.

I was thinking, "Gell-Mann... as in Murray Gell-Mann? Nobel Prize winner? the physicist who named the quark? That Gell-Mann?"
Turns out, yeah... that Gell-Mann.

Funny thing is that the quote I found was by Michael Crichton. The same Michael Crichton that was a physician (no shit), novelist and director.

The quote is interesting, but it's just a cute quote from Crichton in 2002. It has no direct relation to physics or to Gell-Mann aside from Crichton saying they talked about it. I don't see any scientific study or psychological findings that support the assertion as a widespread phenomenon.

... but people are pretty dumb and anecdotally, it's apparent everywhere.