Is impeachment the new political weapon? (1 Viewer)

[Speed_eRacer]

I posted this over on the conservative board but I think it is a good subject. Will this be a new political weapon of the future. Once a president is elected the other side spends its time trying to dig up anything they can that could be a possible impeachment act and force investigations?

 

[JimEverett]

No, I did not realize that specific quote was only referencing the obstruction.

However, the report also states explicitly these two things specifically about conspiracy/collusion/coordination:

"In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

"We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

He states quite clearly that the report will point out the absence of evidence (or conflicts of evidence) about a fact, or that events occurred if the evidence supports it. Then he states when they use the phrase "did not establish particular facts" it does not mean there was no evidence of that fact; then he uses that exact phrase when referring to coordinating with the Russian government.

Again, you claimed the report stated there was "no evidence at all" of collusion/conspiracy/coordination. The report quoted directly above refutes your claim, and states clearly that if there was absence of evidence it would explicitly state that.

Give an example of a specific finding that he states is evidence of an underlying crime committed by Trump.

 

[MT15]

Jim, this is tangential, but have you followed the Roger Stone trial that just started? From what I have read, the Trump campaign, and Trump himself, were urging Stone to get in touch with Wikileaks so that they could know what was coming and when it was coming during the campaign. They were also trying to get Wikileaks to “find the missing emails”. Is there any problem with this sort of cooperation between a presidential campaign and Wikileaks over hacked material?

i would think that would cross some sort of legal line, since the hacked material is stolen.

 

[JimEverett]

Jim, this is tangential, but have you followed the Roger Stone trial that just started? From what I have read, the Trump campaign, and Trump himself, were urging Stone to get in touch with Wikileaks so that they could know what was coming and when it was coming during the campaign. They were also trying to get Wikileaks to “find the missing emails”. Is there any problem with this sort of cooperation between a presidential campaign and Wikileaks over hacked material?

i would think that would cross some sort of legal line, since the hacked material is stolen.

I don't know.

I guess my first impression would be whether this is any different from a campaign calling the Times or Post or CNN and asking what was coming and pushing them to get a story or something.

At the same time, I recognize there could be some big or small differences that I am not considering or aware.

But I am not following the trial, although I want to catch up on it.

 

[MT15]

I think, and am far from knowing, that the fact that they are dealing with stolen information obtained through commission of a crime would be different than pushing a story on MSM.

 

[JimEverett]

I think, and am far from knowing, that the fact that they are dealing with stolen information obtained through commission of a crime would be different than pushing a story on MSM.

I am just supposing, cause I like I said - I haven't been following very closely so don't know the details:
but I can see your point IF the campaign is somehow helping to facilitate the crime of hacking a server or whatnot. If it is after the fact, i.e. - after Wikileaks has already received stolen information then I am not sure it makes a difference.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I am just supposing, cause I like I said - I haven't been following very closely so don't know the details:
but I can see your point IF the campaign is somehow helping to facilitate the crime of hacking a server or whatnot. If it is after the fact, i.e. - after Wikileaks has already received stolen information then I am not sure it makes a difference.

if someone broke into hillary's house and stole things and some of them happened to be nudes of hers and then they gave those nudes to trump - would trump be free to tweet them? even if he didn't break in?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

if someone broke into hillary's house and stole things and some of them happened to be nudes of hers and then they gave those nudes to trump - would trump be free to tweet them? even if he didn't break in?

To take it a step further: what if Trump knew there was a chance that someone would break in and steal them, then planned accordingly so he was ready to take advantage of the theft as soon as it happened?

 

[Beach Friends]

Nobody wants to see nudes of Hillary.

 

[JimEverett]

if someone broke into hillary's house and stole things and some of them happened to be nudes of hers and then they gave those nudes to trump - would trump be free to tweet them? even if he didn't break in?

I am not sure what the point is you are making, but we can make up suppositions all day.
Suppose someone hacked Trump's email server and turned it over to the NYT. Would you think Elizabeth Warren would be wrong to ask the NYT if and when they were publishing the emails and to keep them up to date on the story?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I am not sure what the point is you are making, but we can make up suppositions all day.
Suppose someone hacked Trump's email server and turned it over to the NYT. Would you think Elizabeth Warren would be wrong to ask the NYT if and when they were publishing the emails and to keep them up to date on the story?

yes
i would find it problematic from the hacker, warren and the NYT

 

[JimEverett]

yes
i would find it problematic from the hacker, warren and the NYT

Why would you have a problem with the NYT ad Warren? I am just curious. Is it because you find the press publishing anything gotten out of an unlawful transaction/act problematic - and thus any sort of political communication about it problematic?

 

[MT15]

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would have a problem with Warren doing that, but not necessarily The NY Times. The other factor is that the someone doing the hacking is a foreign state adversarial to our interests. That adds a new dimension and makes a difference vs a common criminal hacker. In that case I would probably have a problem with everyone involved in the transaction you described.

 

[superchuck500]

Jim, this is tangential, but have you followed the Roger Stone trial that just started? From what I have read, the Trump campaign, and Trump himself, were urging Stone to get in touch with Wikileaks so that they could know what was coming and when it was coming during the campaign. They were also trying to get Wikileaks to “find the missing emails”. Is there any problem with this sort of cooperation between a presidential campaign and Wikileaks over hacked material?

i would think that would cross some sort of legal line, since the hacked material is stolen.

The Stone prosecution is a product of the Special Counsel investigation - which was primarily investigating whether there was any illegal cooperation/collusion between the Trump campaign and illegal activity relating to the 2016 election, including the DNC hack. The investigation concluded that it did not discover sufficient information to support any charges, so I think that answers your questions.

I think as a matter of policy and public expectations, most Americans don't want that kind of activity from their presidential campaigns. To be sure, some don't care (whatever it takes to win) and some are highly cynical ("this sort of thing happens all the time" even if it doesn't) . . . but I think most agree that it's not something we should accept.

 

[JimEverett]

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would have a problem with Warren doing that, but not necessarily The NY Times. The other factor is that the someone doing the hacking is a foreign state adversarial to our interests. That adds a new dimension and makes a difference vs a common criminal hacker. In that case I would probably have a problem with everyone involved in the transaction you described.

I sort of understand.
But for me, I don't see a problem with anyone in the scenario I laid out. I don't think it is problematic for the Press to publish something that comes from a foreign source. I especially do not think the press should only publish info coming from sources they find as pro-American. Maintain the standards of verification, of course.

As far as a campaign contacting the press and asking that something be or not be published and asking to be given advanced notice of publication or something - I don't see a problem at all there. And I think that happens often.

 

[Dadsdream]

As far as a campaign contacting the press and asking that something be or not be published and asking to be given advanced notice of publication or something - I don't see a problem at all there. And I think that happens often.

Every campaign, sometimes every event, has a press packet. It's what's not in the press packet that reporters have to dig for.

 

[Nebaghead]

Nobody wants to see nudes of Hillary.

I don't agree much with what you post, but I agree 100% with this.

 

[MT15]

I sort of understand.
But for me, I don't see a problem with anyone in the scenario I laid out. I don't think it is problematic for the Press to publish something that comes from a foreign source. I especially do not think the press should only publish info coming from sources they find as pro-American. Maintain the standards of verification, of course.

As far as a campaign contacting the press and asking that something be or not be published and asking to be given advanced notice of publication or something - I don't see a problem at all there. And I think that happens often.

well, yes, campaigns coordinate with media on normal articles all the time. I don’t see it as the same thing when it is a dump of illegally obtained material.

But we’ve gotten a bit afield of what we were originally talking about. Wikileaks is not a media company in any real sense of the word. In this case they are more like a fence for stolen property, and the Trump campaign’s willingness, even eagerness, to contact them and figure out how to profit from the stolen material seems problematic to me.

My guess is that if Obama had done this, it would be problematic for every single Republican in a Congress.

 

[Lazybones]

My guess is that if Obama had done this, it would NOT be problematic for ONE single DEMOCRAT in a Congress.

I had to.