In the article, regarding Paul Erickson's role in all of this:
“Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns,” Erickson wrote in an October 2016 email to an acquaintance that was later obtained by the FBI, “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [unnamed political party] leaders through, of all conduits, the [unnamed gun-rights organization].”
And during an FBI raid of Erickson’s South Dakota home, investigators discovered a handwritten note suggesting Erickson may have been aware of a possible job offer from Russian intelligence services: “How to respond to FSB offer of employment?” Erickson scratched, an apparent reference to the Russian equivalent of the CIA.
First off: wow, what an impregnable code there. Secondly: why the fuck would you write down something about a job offer from the FSB?!
In the article, regarding Paul Erickson's role in all of this:
“Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns,” Erickson wrote in an October 2016 email to an acquaintance that was later obtained by the FBI, “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [unnamed political party] leaders through, of all conduits, the [unnamed gun-rights organization].”
And during an FBI raid of Erickson’s South Dakota home, investigators discovered a handwritten note suggesting Erickson may have been aware of a possible job offer from Russian intelligence services: “How to respond to FSB offer of employment?” Erickson scratched, an apparent reference to the Russian equivalent of the CIA.
First off: wow, what an impregnable code there. Secondly: why the fuck would you write down something about a job offer from the FSB?!
Most criminals don't think they are going to get caught.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On Butina, there is a ton of assumption that Russia didn't already burn her, that Putin has a ton of leverage on her or both. Threats only work, if the individual feels that compliance ensures safety and frankly, it doesn't really seem like things work out that way for anyone that become a liability to Trump's ambitions and I believe getting caught trying to undermine the US for Putin's goes a hell of long way to making one a liability in the eyes of Putin. Also threats to family and friends, only works if they are still accessible to the government making threats and only if the person being threatened cares about them.
Things like that Morning Joe report don't seem big, but they're actually fairly important. The big fish here aren't going to see any legal repercussions, so the real consequences are going to be political. And the first step towards there being actual political consequences is people THINKING that such consequences are possible.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+24
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Things like that Morning Joe report don't seem big, but they're actually fairly important. The big fish here aren't going to see any legal repercussions, so the real consequences are going to be political. And the first step towards there being actual political consequences is people THINKING that such consequences are possible.
It's not a big deal until we (the royal "we") treat it like it is
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
The assumption is that Congress would act appropriately, because the voters would respond appropriately. It honestly seemed to make sense until we tested it.
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
The idea is that the sole recourse to a sitting President's criminality is Impeachment. Which makes a certain kind of sense.
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
There are memos from Kenneth Starr’s team outlining that of COURSE you can indict a sitting President.
Things like that Morning Joe report don't seem big, but they're actually fairly important. The big fish here aren't going to see any legal repercussions, so the real consequences are going to be political. And the first step towards there being actual political consequences is people THINKING that such consequences are possible.
I've certainly seen a lot more "Trump is F'd" stories in the past week then I've ever seen before.
+8
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
The idea is that the sole recourse to a sitting President's criminality is Impeachment. Which makes a certain kind of sense.
It really doesn't. Certain privileges and immunity in the course of duty makes sense but the idea that the President could strangle a journalist he doesn't like to death and only be subject to removal from office via impeachment is senseless. If the President cannot be indicted then the President is above the law.
Things like that Morning Joe report don't seem big, but they're actually fairly important. The big fish here aren't going to see any legal repercussions, so the real consequences are going to be political. And the first step towards there being actual political consequences is people THINKING that such consequences are possible.
I've certainly seen a lot more "Trump is F'd" stories in the past week then I've ever seen before.
The indictments aren’t focusing on foreign collusion as much as bog standard financial crimes. The more it looks like Trump is guilty of normal crime instead of politically connected crime, the more people in power start to realize that he may end up going to jail for it.
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
The idea is that the sole recourse to a sitting President's criminality is Impeachment. Which makes a certain kind of sense.
It really doesn't. Certain privileges and immunity in the course of duty makes sense but the idea that the President could strangle a journalist he doesn't like to death and only be subject to removal from office via impeachment is senseless. If the President cannot be indicted then the President is above the law.
Isn't the idea that, once removed, he could subsequently be indicted? I don't think impeachment counts toward double jeopardy, right? The main concern is that the incoming President could simply pardon, at least for federal crimes.
EDIT: Basically some have argued he is temporarily above the law only while sitting in the chair, by my understanding.
Whenever I hear about how there's a "policy not to indict a sitting president" I immediately think oh that's absolutely horrible and needs to be annihilated.
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
The idea is that the sole recourse to a sitting President's criminality is Impeachment. Which makes a certain kind of sense.
It really doesn't. Certain privileges and immunity in the course of duty makes sense but the idea that the President could strangle a journalist he doesn't like to death and only be subject to removal from office via impeachment is senseless. If the President cannot be indicted then the President is above the law.
It's not illegal if nobody with the power to hold you accountable will do so.
The laws weren't written with the possibility in mind that one entire branch of government would simply not do their job.
Reading through quotes of various GOP senators and congressmen, I can't believe how many of them are saying it's no big deal because it was before he was president and bascally it's just the mean dems trying to create laws to make.trump look bad.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Reading through quotes of various GOP senators and congressmen, I can't believe how many of them are saying it's no big deal because it was before he was president and bascally it's just the mean dems trying to create laws to make.trump look bad.
Yeah, Trump could take a dump on the whitehouse lawn in front of a group of school children and then get one of them to wipe his ass with the american flag while he hit on their teacher and republicans would still make excuses for him.
Like, the enduring legacy of the trump presidency is how the gop will void any pretense of ethical standards if it means they can squeeze a tiny bit more power out of the system.
I've wondered about that. Impeachment aside, what would happen if the President did something obviously illegal?
I'm deliberately trying to avoid real-world examples here, so let's say President Lex Luthor shoots a mild-mannered journalist in the head with a green bullet, for some reason. The Secret Service see him do it. For the purposes of this example they haven't been bought and paid for by President Evil, so they're not loyal to whatever schemes he's got cooking. Do they shoot him / restrain him for the police / testify at his trial? Or do they have to wait for the President to be impeached before they can actually legally do anything to stop him?
Based on the current Senatorial response and Trump's pre-Presidential comment, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," I assume the president's actions would receive a response a lot like Benedict from Last Action Hero. I don't think there's anything Mueller could possibly find to get a Republican-held Senate to act.
I don't know enough about the Mueller-ian mindset to know if he'd want to overturn the Starr precedent of "I could indict the president, but it's really up to the Senate." He's very professional and by-the-book, which speaks to following Starr's precedent in my mind.
As in something that police would instantly tackle you to the ground for/shoot you if you did it and weren't the President.
Yes.
Most people aren't legal eagles and the difference between the Republican party booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook (legal) and Russia booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook at the request of the Republican party (illegal) sounds very unimportant to the man in the street.
The interesting question being asked is more like "What would the Republican party do if the President committed an assault or murder on camera?"
As in something that police would instantly tackle you to the ground for/shoot you if you did it and weren't the President.
Yes.
Most people aren't legal eagles and the difference between the Republican party booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook (legal) and Russia booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook at the request of the Republican party (illegal) sounds very unimportant to the man in the street.
The interesting question being asked is more like "What would the Republican party do if the President committed an assault or murder on camera?"
Well that depends on the party. As we've seen, if it's a Republican they'd send out some tweets about being disturbed and hoping he will do better in the future, it's his first day, the Democrats did it first, the Democrats are making it up, it was awesome
If it was a Democrat, they'd be impeached literally immediately.
As in something that police would instantly tackle you to the ground for/shoot you if you did it and weren't the President.
Yes.
Most people aren't legal eagles and the difference between the Republican party booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook (legal) and Russia booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook at the request of the Republican party (illegal) sounds very unimportant to the man in the street.
The interesting question being asked is more like "What would the Republican party do if the President committed an assault or murder on camera?"
Well that depends on the party. As we've seen, if it's a Republican they'd send out some tweets about being disturbed and hoping he will do better in the future, it's his first day, the Democrats did it first, the Democrats are making it up, it was awesome
If it was a Democrat, they'd be impeached literally immediately.
They'd also publish poorly doctored security footage and "just ask questions" about whether it's actually Hillary committing the attack.
Or possibly Hillary, Obama, and George Soros in one trench coat.
As in something that police would instantly tackle you to the ground for/shoot you if you did it and weren't the President.
Yes.
Most people aren't legal eagles and the difference between the Republican party booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook (legal) and Russia booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook at the request of the Republican party (illegal) sounds very unimportant to the man in the street.
The interesting question being asked is more like "What would the Republican party do if the President committed an assault or murder on camera?"
If it was a Democrat, they'd be impeached literally immediately.
And, comfortingly, the murderous Democratic President would be impeached just as hard by his/her own party, because Democrats give a shit about laws as something other than a way to oppress people you don't like.
If trump literally murdered someone on camera, he would be arrested. Someone would probably sue to have him released and it would make it to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, he would be impeached and removed from office, and after removal he would be indicted, tried and convicted.
SCOTUS would decide they didn't want top hear the case, but it wouldn't much matter, because Trump has already been sentenced for murder.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not trying to make a lament about how jaded politics has become (we have plenty of those), I genuinely want to know what the legal and federal people around the President are legally allowed to do if the President just started shooting people.
If someone assaulted the President with a bat, the Secret Service would bring them down at approximately lightspeed. If the President just started assaulting someone with a bat, what would the Secret Service do?
I'm not trying to make a lament about how jaded politics has become (we have plenty of those), I genuinely want to know what the legal and federal people around the President are legally allowed to do if the President just started shooting people.
If someone assaulted the President with a bat, the Secret Service would bring them down at approximately lightspeed. If the President just started assaulting someone with a bat, what would the Secret Service do?
Likely be detained by either the Secret Service or Capitol Police and put under guard in the White House, then the 25th Amendment used to forcibly transfer power to the VP until it's resolved.
Posts
In the article, regarding Paul Erickson's role in all of this:
First off: wow, what an impregnable code there. Secondly: why the fuck would you write down something about a job offer from the FSB?!
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Most criminals don't think they are going to get caught.
Also, most criminals are dumb.
IIRC the people trying to convert Rick Gates joked about how goddamn stupid he was.
Stringer Bell would not be amused.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
It's not a big deal until we (the royal "we") treat it like it is
Like fuck off, the president can just start shooting folks and well our hands are tied someone wrote down once that it might be a hassle to bring the president to justice.
The assumption is that Congress would act appropriately, because the voters would respond appropriately. It honestly seemed to make sense until we tested it.
The idea is that the sole recourse to a sitting President's criminality is Impeachment. Which makes a certain kind of sense.
There are memos from Kenneth Starr’s team outlining that of COURSE you can indict a sitting President.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That’s more implied than outright stated, but yes.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I've certainly seen a lot more "Trump is F'd" stories in the past week then I've ever seen before.
It really doesn't. Certain privileges and immunity in the course of duty makes sense but the idea that the President could strangle a journalist he doesn't like to death and only be subject to removal from office via impeachment is senseless. If the President cannot be indicted then the President is above the law.
The indictments aren’t focusing on foreign collusion as much as bog standard financial crimes. The more it looks like Trump is guilty of normal crime instead of politically connected crime, the more people in power start to realize that he may end up going to jail for it.
Isn't the idea that, once removed, he could subsequently be indicted? I don't think impeachment counts toward double jeopardy, right? The main concern is that the incoming President could simply pardon, at least for federal crimes.
EDIT: Basically some have argued he is temporarily above the law only while sitting in the chair, by my understanding.
It's not illegal if nobody with the power to hold you accountable will do so.
The laws weren't written with the possibility in mind that one entire branch of government would simply not do their job.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I wish I could be surprised
Like, the enduring legacy of the trump presidency is how the gop will void any pretense of ethical standards if it means they can squeeze a tiny bit more power out of the system.
I'm deliberately trying to avoid real-world examples here, so let's say President Lex Luthor shoots a mild-mannered journalist in the head with a green bullet, for some reason. The Secret Service see him do it. For the purposes of this example they haven't been bought and paid for by President Evil, so they're not loyal to whatever schemes he's got cooking. Do they shoot him / restrain him for the police / testify at his trial? Or do they have to wait for the President to be impeached before they can actually legally do anything to stop him?
President Grant got a speeding ticket.
*waves vaguely at, like, everything*
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
So something in public, like blatantly obstructing justice during a TV interview?
Or perhaps publicly requesting an adversarial country to interfere in an election during a press conference?
I don't know enough about the Mueller-ian mindset to know if he'd want to overturn the Starr precedent of "I could indict the president, but it's really up to the Senate." He's very professional and by-the-book, which speaks to following Starr's precedent in my mind.
Yes.
Most people aren't legal eagles and the difference between the Republican party booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook (legal) and Russia booking anti-Clinton ads on Facebook at the request of the Republican party (illegal) sounds very unimportant to the man in the street.
The interesting question being asked is more like "What would the Republican party do if the President committed an assault or murder on camera?"
Well that depends on the party. As we've seen, if it's a Republican they'd send out some tweets about being disturbed and hoping he will do better in the future, it's his first day, the Democrats did it first, the Democrats are making it up, it was awesome
If it was a Democrat, they'd be impeached literally immediately.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
They'd also publish poorly doctored security footage and "just ask questions" about whether it's actually Hillary committing the attack.
Or possibly Hillary, Obama, and George Soros in one trench coat.
And, comfortingly, the murderous Democratic President would be impeached just as hard by his/her own party, because Democrats give a shit about laws as something other than a way to oppress people you don't like.
SCOTUS would decide they didn't want top hear the case, but it wouldn't much matter, because Trump has already been sentenced for murder.
If someone assaulted the President with a bat, the Secret Service would bring them down at approximately lightspeed. If the President just started assaulting someone with a bat, what would the Secret Service do?
Now if the Head of the FBI was sitting there, then I think you have yourself a question.
Likely be detained by either the Secret Service or Capitol Police and put under guard in the White House, then the 25th Amendment used to forcibly transfer power to the VP until it's resolved.