The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
I think you misunderstood LC, he means his jokes were likely pointed out by the right-wing outlet because of his criticism of Trump. To put him on blast, basically.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
I think you misunderstood LC, he means his jokes were likely pointed out by the right-wing outlet because of his criticism of Trump. To put him on blast, basically.
I agree that authoritarianism is bad; I do not believe that people exercising their freedom of association because someone exercised their freedom of speech to be a bad thing.
Saphrax
Nomad
I got that and know it was the result of a retaliatory move but Disney isn’t a right wing company by any stretch of the imagination these days. It was an easy set up for Cernovich to troll Gunn given how Gunn aligned himself and who his employer was.
Most who apposed the Gunn firing were other entertainers (Patton Oswalt, et al) who also have a stake in free speech.
Last edited:
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Don't think anybody was suggesting that.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
I think it's about people with similar or same views that should still talk about them, hence the platform part. But keep in mind there's a thin line between affirmative-constructive discussion and echo chambers (a circlejerk).
Last night, Robert Mueller voided Paul Manafort's plea deal and is moving to sentence Manafort. It turns out that all along, Mueller was aware that Manafort lied under oath while giving details of his plea deal.
This comes shortly after Trump submitted written questions to Mueller. We also know that Manafort and Trump's lawyers were working together. It almost makes me wonder if Mueller didn't allow Manafort to lie to see if Trump's team would match his lies. If so, it's perjury.
This comes shortly after Trump submitted written questions to Mueller. We also know that Manafort and Trump's lawyers were working together. It almost makes me wonder if Mueller didn't allow Manafort to lie to see if Trump's team would match his lies. If so, it's perjury.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Honest question. How serious is perjury? Is it a case by case basis? do sentences vary in severity depending on the severity of the perjury? People lie A LOT. So they either don't take it seriously or it isn't that serious of an offense. Right?
Saphrax
Nomad
In Manafort’s case, it depends on the severity of the lie and what the effects that lie had on the Mueller investigation were. Perjury charges for something like fibbing in court about whether or not one littered in the park are less severe than lying to a jury anout about embezzling a million dollars or something. In many juridictions perjury only matters if lying affected the outcome of a case being tried for something else (example: a witness who lies about whether or not they were singing along to Katy Perry the night in question is committing non-actionable perjury unless for some reason that detail had bearing on the case. A witness who knowingly lies about another’s criminal wrongdoing in a case is committing actionable perjury).
Maddeningly enough, Trump has the power to pardon Manafort, which may have emboldened Manafort to try the perjury route.
Regarding Trump, perjury is serious enough to be an impeachable offense but impeachment isn’t the same process as a criminal trial.
Impeachment is highly politicized and depends on the will of congress to pursue it.
The Bill Clinton impeachment attempt in the 90’s was based on perjury charges for something (in my opinion) much less serious than tbe collusion being investigated around Trump.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Last edited:
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
From what I've come to learn about the Clinton case, he WAS impeached by the... house? I think, but the Dems controlled the Senate so it went nowhere. So yeah, all of Congress has to agree, and yes... so he lied about a BJ, big fucking whoop. That's like when my GF tells me the omellet I made her was delicious when in fact it wasn't. The current situation is much more serious and not just having to do with Russia. There's the Stormy Daniels hush money, his tax returns, the numerous fraud lawsuits against him, etc.... I can't believe they haven't been able to pin ANYTHING on him.
I don't think that the GOP senate would convict Trump over perjury unless his approval rate plummeted to the 20% range - signalling abandonment of the base. I do think the GOP senate would convict Trump over major attempts to get Russia on board to assist him in the election.
The House impeaches; the Senate convicts.
Saphrax
Nomad
LC is right about the process. You understand correctly that Clinton was impeached but not convicted/removed from office. It only takes a majority vote of the house judiciary committee to impeach (which just means to bring forth charges) but it takes a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate to convict.
The only 2 US presidents to ever be impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither one was removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for Watergate. He also pardoned most of his cronies before he did so.
This leads me to conclude that, with a Republican majority in the Senate, it’s highly unlikely Trump will be removed from office no matter how guilty he may be. The collateral effect of this investigation and any impeachment the house might pursue manifests more in how it may affect Trump’s reelection chances in 2020 (or his decision to bother running) than anything else.
Last edited:
Saphrax
Nomad
You’ve more faith in the GOP here than I do. I think, by virtue of dragging out the hearings, the senate would just allow Trump to leave office in 2020 as long as he didn’t run for reelection. No party wants their president to be the first ever removed from office.
2/3 of the senate would mean all 47 democrats plus 20 republicans voting to convict.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
When can the president pardon someone? Do they have to be convicted first?
The reason I ask is that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are already known to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Their reputations are in tatters and they're not the big fish in this. The FBI and Justice Department would surely take losing those two from prison if they can get the big fish in all this, be it the president or his son or whoever.
Also, the people investigating the Russian links would probably expect the president to pardon Manafort, so could they feasibly hold back some charges and bring him back in once the current president is out of the picture?
I don’t see any situation where the Senate convicts, other than something wild like the pee tape leaking or a video recording of Trump colluding with Putin. Even then it’s a stretch. Trump carried a lot of Senate Republicans to victory this year, no way they abandon him at this point. An impeachment attempt would likely bolster his reelection chances.
From what I understand, a pardon comes with the acknowledgement that a crime was committed. You can’t be pardoned if there wasn’t a crime. They can still be compelled to testify under a pardon and are no longer protected by the 5th amendment. I’m not sure if they can hold back charges for federal crimes, but pardons don’t apply to state crimes. Mueller has been working with the NYC AG presumably for that reason.
From what I understand, a pardon comes with the acknowledgement that a crime was committed. You can’t be pardoned if there wasn’t a crime. They can still be compelled to testify under a pardon and are no longer protected by the 5th amendment. I’m not sure if they can hold back charges for federal crimes, but pardons don’t apply to state crimes. Mueller has been working with the NYC AG presumably for that reason.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
And if they refuse to testify against themselves can they be convicted of contempt of court despite having been pardoned for another crime?
Saphrax
Nomad
A presidential (or gubernatorial at a state level) pardon usually commutes or absolves the sentence of a convicted person. It doesn’t grant lifetime immunity although the 5th amendment prevents people from being tried multiple times for the same crime, so it’s like a get out of jail free card for whatever sentences were pardoned.
It can also be used proactively to ensure a person isn’t sentenced if convicted of something later (nullifying the point of a having trial). A famous example is Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon for “any crimes” Nixon “may have” committed in office. Jimmy Carter in 1977 unilaterally pardoned any Americans who fled the country to avoid the Vietnam War era draft (allowing these men to return to the US if they chose to without fear of prosecution).
A president can’t pardon himself, however.
I believe so.
This hasn’t really been tested though. It would likely be heard by the Supreme Court.
Saphrax
Nomad
That’s technically true — it’d be a first and a bad precedent were the SCOTUS to allow it. I’d assume an explicit amendment barring it for future presidents would follow.
Barring a dead hooker in the Lincoln bedroom, however, I really doubt things would get to that point with Trump. As reviled and egregious as he is, the mantle of his office plus his party’s majority in the Senate makes him nearly untouchable. Now if there were 67+ Democratic senators in congress, then Trump would probably be gone already.