Stuff you just can't make up

gcomeau wrote:Can we just take a step back and reflect on the fact that "President paid 6 figure bribe to porn star he cheated in his new wife on" is like.... the 3rd or 4th worst thing to come out about the administration in the last couple of weeks alone and can barely break into the news cycle?


This is what you have brought the American presidency to Trump supporters.

Unless the story also involved a greased up midget it had no hope of being news.

Which really says a lot.

"If the President were a racist why would NBC hire him" states Sarah H-S, no doubt forgetting that NBC fired Trump for being racist.

Sheesh.

Yet when Bill Clinton got a blow job it resulted in a media beat up for months.

gcomeau wrote:Can we just take a step back and reflect on the fact that "President paid 6 figure bribe to porn star he cheated on his new wife on" is like.... the 3rd or 4th worst thing to come out about the administration in the last couple of weeks alone and can barely break into the news cycle?


This is what you have brought the American presidency to Trump supporters.

To be fair to the doctor, he would be expected to present as positive a picture of the Presidents health as possible. Regardless of who the President actually is.

But yeah, the case of the mysteriously stretching President is a tad too much.

Daryl wrote:Yet when Bill Clinton got a blow job it resulted in a media beat up for months.

gcomeau wrote:Can we just take a step back and reflect on the fact that "President paid 6 figure bribe to porn star he cheated on his new wife on" is like.... the 3rd or 4th worst thing to come out about the administration in the last couple of weeks alone and can barely break into the news cycle?


This is what you have brought the American presidency to Trump supporters.

What really got him in trouble was lying about it in court under oath. That was a criminal act, which was made far worse by the fact that he was a lawyer i.e. an officer of the court.


Interestingly, the US Senate did a bit of legal inventing here. They didn't feel that his actions were sufficiently bad to warrant removal from office but they didn't want to condone illegal activity either. So they issued a letter of censure. This sets a precedent that gives them another option when someone is impeached (presidential ones get the headlines but the vast majority of impeachments are federal judges etc). So now they have a new option when a judge is impeached they can convict, acquit or issue a letter of censure.

biochem wrote:

Daryl wrote:Yet when Bill Clinton got a blow job it resulted in a media beat up for months.

What really got him in trouble was lying about it in court under oath. That was a criminal act, which was made far worse by the fact that he was a lawyer i.e. an officer of the court.


Interestingly, the US Senate did a bit of legal inventing here. They didn't feel that his actions were sufficiently bad to warrant removal from office but they didn't want to condone illegal activity either. So they issued a letter of censure. This sets a precedent that gives them another option when someone is impeached (presidential ones get the headlines but the vast majority of impeachments are federal judges etc). So now they have a new option when a judge is impeached they can convict, acquit or issue a letter of censure.

The last time Trump was known to have been deposed under oath he was forced to admit to approximately 30 lies I believe.

Mueller is eventually going to interview him, the Trump team is doing everything humanly possible to try to avoid this but they frankly can't. They have no authority or power to deny Mueller an interview if he wants one, he will definitely want one, and a Grand Jury subpoena applies even to the president.

Lying to Mueller will be a felony. Mueller has multiple cooperating witnesses that have told him a ton of things and Trump will not know what Mueller knows.

Trump lies reflexively and pathologically.

Buckle up.

They have no power or authority to deny Mueller an interview if he wants one.

Actually they do. It's called the constitution.

You have a right to remain silent and most lawyers strongly advise you to exercise that right even if you are innocent. Actually I have heard that some lawyers recommend it ESPECIALLY if you are innocent.

biochem wrote:

They have no power or authority to deny Mueller an interview if he wants one.

Actually they do. It's called the constitution.

You have a right to remain silent and most lawyers strongly advise you to exercise that right even if you are innocent. Actually I have heard that some lawyers recommend it ESPECIALLY if you are innocent.

He has the right to remain silent IN the interview. He does not have the right to avoid the interview. He will have to go there, sit for the interview, and repeatedly over and over and over and over again to question after question after question after question say "I invoke my fifth amendment right against self incrimination".

And while in a purely legal setting a jury would be instructed not to take invoking the 5th as evidence of guilt, in terms of POLITICS and how the entire country will see it?

If he invokes his 5th amendment right against self incrimination repeatedly to refuse to provide answers about a Russian conspiracy to influence the election that made him president when Mueller tries to interview him about it it WILL come out and his presidency will be cooked. There won't be a person outside his hardcore 20 to 25% "we would support him if he strangled a puppy on live television" base who will support him. And a large chunk of the GOP will go down with him unless they turn on him hard and throw him out of office... and likely even if they do throw him out.

biochem wrote:What really got him in trouble was lying about it in court under oath. That was a criminal act, which was made far worse by the fact that he was a lawyer i.e. an officer of the court.


Interestingly, the US Senate did a bit of legal inventing here. They didn't feel that his actions were sufficiently bad to warrant removal from office but they didn't want to condone illegal activity either. So they issued a letter of censure. This sets a precedent that gives them another option when someone is impeached (presidential ones get the headlines but the vast majority of impeachments are federal judges etc). So now they have a new option when a judge is impeached they can convict, acquit or issue a letter of censure.

From what I recall it was actually the other way around - he technically didn't lie, because the way "sexual relations" was legally defined didn't include oral sex performed on him (arguably, at least).

Also, when was he censured by the Senate? From what I can find there were attempts to do so that didn't pass.

@ Eyal

You are correct, censure was was proposed but not passed. Interestingly polls from the time indicate that the general public liked the solution. My memory of the 20 year old event is off. I must be getting old.