Obama's role in the current Russia collusion crisis

[Underseer]

Oh, I'm not just going to yell about Obama. I'm going to yell about/at all of the establishment Democrats. In all this talk about Trump's collusion with Russia, his obstruction of justice, and talk about applying the rule of law even to presidents, I have not heard one single politician mention the elephant in the room.

About 8 years ago, Obama refused to charge Bush and Pence with war crimes even though they confessed to them in press conferences. In fact Obama did not charge any senior Bush administration officials with war crimes. Only a few low ranking servicemen at the bottom of the command chain faced any charges, if I remember correctly.

When asked why, Obama gave a bullshit excuse about "looking forward instead of back" as if the direction we face excuses throwing the Magna Carta under the bus.

Now suddenly establishment Democrats are talking big talk about holding Trump accountable for his crimes.

You know what? Great. If Trump did in fact commit crimes, then he should face the same punishment any other citizen would for those same crimes, because we are supposed to be a nation of laws rather than men, and we should at least be able to live up to the standards of the British people we rebelled from.

Hold the Trump administration accountable. Great. Lock them all up if we can prove that they are guilty.

But you Democrats have to explain why the law should apply to Trump and Pence when you refused to apply it to Bush and Cheney. I'm not going to expect this of Republicans because we all know they don't believe in the rule of law, but you?

You have explaining to do, senator Feinstein. You and all the other establishment Democrats have a lot of explaining to do.

Trump was only following expectations you Democrats created, the expectation that the president can commit virtually any crime without fear of consequences.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you Democrats have to explain why the law should apply to Trump and Pence when you refused to apply it to Bush and Cheney. I'm not going to expect this of Republicans because we all know they don't believe in the rule of law, but you?

Maybe because Trump and Pence and their posse are in power RIGHT NOW. They're committing their crimes now AND looking to the future, we don't see any reason to believe they won't continue to commit their crimes.

 

[Toni]

It's not an excuse but I can see why Obama did what he did. First of all, we have a long history of forgiving our leaders, even if they were traitors. After all, Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States, and even issued a pardon to Robert E. Lee. I would argue that the Confederates were far worse than the Bush admin.

Secondly, Obama was going to have a tough time with any/everything and he knew very well that what was needed most was some kind of pulling together to try to get us through and past the Great Recession (which frankly was a picnic compared to the Great Depression). He was looking to try to bring people together and forgiveness is a powerful tool for that.

Unfortunately, what we have now is a pretty limp, weak tool as POTUS who tries to compensate and distract from his gross incompetence and crimes and misdemeanors by twittering his brains out. And a majority party willing to let him do it so they can undo everything done by Obama.

 

[J842P]

But you Democrats have to explain why the law should apply to Trump and Pence when you refused to apply it to Bush and Cheney. I'm not going to expect this of Republicans because we all know they don't believe in the rule of law, but you?

Maybe because Trump and Pence and their posse are in power RIGHT NOW. They're committing their crimes now AND looking to the future, we don't see any reason to believe they won't continue to commit their crimes.

So, those in power should only be held accountable for their crimes if we think they are likely to commit them again? But if they get away with it, and they are out of power, oh well?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe because Trump and Pence and their posse are in power RIGHT NOW. They're committing their crimes now AND looking to the future, we don't see any reason to believe they won't continue to commit their crimes.

So, those in power should only be held accountable for their crimes if we think they are likely to commit them again? But if they get away with it, and they are out of power, oh well?

That seems to be the tradition.
Nixon got pardoned, Confederates got pardoned, Bush didn't get prosecuted, Bush didn't get prosecuted, Clinton didn't get divorced... As soon as Trump was elected he stopped shouting 'lock her up.' All Hillary's crimes seemed unimportant when she was out of the running. Until people started to scrutinize Trump, then suddenly let's talk about Hillary's criminal past...

If Trump resigns and retires to Mar A Lago, he'll probably be pardoned by whoever's left standing, king of the rubble. To 'move us on' past the shadow of this dark period of the nation's history.

 

[barbos]

Presidents will be tempted to stay in power until they die if they don't get informal immunity form being sent to prison by the next president.

 

[repoman]

huh, but he can't be pardoned for things that happened before he became President, right?

If Mueller breaks open a flat out fraud and money laundering (say funneling debt sales for tax write-offs with the sale dates forged as an example) that happened before november 2016, then what?

 

[Arctish]

huh, but he can't be pardoned for things that happened before he became President, right?

If Mueller breaks open a flat out fraud and money laundering (say funneling debt sales for tax write-offs with the sale dates forged as an example) that happened before november 2016, then what?

Then it's up to the Attorneys General of the states in which those crimes occurred to pursue charges.

 

[Keith&Co.]

huh, but he can't be pardoned for things that happened before he became President, right?

He can be pardoned for anything that anyone tries to prosecute him for.
I would GUESS that any sitting president might pardon Trump for things he did AS president, with some justification about 'to protect the office' or 'out of respect for the big big chair in the oval office,' but the political feedback for pardoning anything else they find would probably be politically contraindicated.

 

[repoman]

huh, but he can't be pardoned for things that happened before he became President, right?

He can be pardoned for anything that anyone tries to prosecute him for.
I would GUESS that any sitting president might pardon Trump for things he did AS president, with some justification about 'to protect the office' or 'out of respect for the big big chair in the oval office,' but the political feedback for pardoning anything else they find would probably be politically contraindicated.

So if they found wrongdoing by Trump (and Kushner, etc...) previous to November 2016 because of Mueller's investigation that would be interesting for prosecution down the line.

 

[whichphilosophy]

But you Democrats have to explain why the law should apply to Trump and Pence when you refused to apply it to Bush and Cheney. I'm not going to expect this of Republicans because we all know they don't believe in the rule of law, but you?

Maybe because Trump and Pence and their posse are in power RIGHT NOW. They're committing their crimes now AND looking to the future, we don't see any reason to believe they won't continue to commit their crimes.

Maybe this is true or maybe it is not but nothing has materialised to substantiate this. A definite maybe isn't enough.

 

[TV and credit cards]

One could argue they were preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States to the best of their abilities and the other (if things play out the way I suspect they will) most definitely can not.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

So, we can't charge Trump because Obama did something, and got by with it? Or Bush did something and got by with it? That establishes to proposition that once a past president got by with something we must let all presidents now and in the future get by with illegal or amoral crap. That obviously isn't a good idea.

 

[Harry Bosch]

View attachment 11471

Oh, I'm not just going to yell about Obama. I'm going to yell about/at all of the establishment Democrats. In all this talk about Trump's collusion with Russia, his obstruction of justice, and talk about applying the rule of law even to presidents, I have not heard one single politician mention the elephant in the room.

About 8 years ago, Obama refused to charge Bush and Pence with war crimes even though they confessed to them in press conferences. In fact Obama did not charge any senior Bush administration officials with war crimes. Only a few low ranking servicemen at the bottom of the command chain faced any charges, if I remember correctly.

When asked why, Obama gave a bullshit excuse about "looking forward instead of back" as if the direction we face excuses throwing the Magna Carta under the bus.

Now suddenly establishment Democrats are talking big talk about holding Trump accountable for his crimes.

You know what? Great. If Trump did in fact commit crimes, then he should face the same punishment any other citizen would for those same crimes, because we are supposed to be a nation of laws rather than men, and we should at least be able to live up to the standards of the British people we rebelled from.

Hold the Trump administration accountable. Great. Lock them all up if we can prove that they are guilty.

But you Democrats have to explain why the law should apply to Trump and Pence when you refused to apply it to Bush and Cheney. I'm not going to expect this of Republicans because we all know they don't believe in the rule of law, but you?

You have explaining to do, senator Feinstein. You and all the other establishment Democrats have a lot of explaining to do.

Trump was only following expectations you Democrats created, the expectation that the president can commit virtually any crime without fear of consequences.

If the Bernie/Nader or bust crowd would just make their vote count, we wouldn't have to rely on tricks to hamper the republicans agenda. I'm sorry, but voting or lack of voting has consequences.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe because Trump and Pence and their posse are in power RIGHT NOW. They're committing their crimes now AND looking to the future, we don't see any reason to believe they won't continue to commit their crimes.

Maybe this is true or maybe it is not but nothing has materialised to substantiate this. A definite maybe isn't enough.

Someone tap the gramophone, the needles stuck.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, we can't charge Trump because Obama did something, and got by with it? Or Bush did something and got by with it? That establishes to proposition that once a past president got by with something we must let all presidents now and in the future get by with illegal or amoral crap. That obviously isn't a good idea.

No, that's not the tradition. If they make it out of town, they get by. If we catch them while they're still at the white house, we get to tar and feather them.
They've impeached two, it was clear they were going to impeach Nixon.
And i don't think anyone around Trump is going to be able to talk him into preparing an 'exit strategy,' even when the peasants start beating on the doors with pitchforks.

 

[funinspace]

Maybe this is true or maybe it is not but nothing has materialised to substantiate this. A definite maybe isn't enough.

Someone tap the gramophone, the needles stuck.

Taps at 1:55+

 

[funinspace]

It's not an excuse but I can see why Obama did what he did. First of all, we have a long history of forgiving our leaders, even if they were traitors. After all, Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States, and even issued a pardon to Robert E. Lee. I would argue that the Confederates were far worse than the Bush admin.

Secondly, Obama was going to have a tough time with any/everything and he knew very well that what was needed most was some kind of pulling together to try to get us through and past the Great Recession (which frankly was a picnic compared to the Great Depression). He was looking to try to bring people together and forgiveness is a powerful tool for that.

Yep, 100%. A partisan war over war crime charges would have made it much tougher on trying to pull out of the 2008-9 crisis...

Unfortunately, what we have now is a pretty limp, weak tool as POTUS who tries to compensate and distract from his gross incompetence and crimes and misdemeanors by twittering his brains out. And a majority party willing to let him do it so they can undo everything done by Obama.

I would just adjust "crimes" to "possible crimes" at least at this stage as we do have a stuck gramophone needle on the thread...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Maybe because Trump and Pence and their posse are in power RIGHT NOW. They're committing their crimes now AND looking to the future, we don't see any reason to believe they won't continue to commit their crimes.

Maybe this is true or maybe it is not but nothing has materialised to substantiate this. A definite maybe isn't enough.

Well, it took six years for your side to determine that Clinton committed the dastardly crime of lying about what is is. How about we allow the current investigation at least 1/2 the time to investigate the Russian connection? Or how about at least 1/3 the time? 2 years? Would that be agreeable?

 

[LordKiran]

View attachment 11471

Oh, I'm not just going to yell about Obama. I'm going to yell about/at all of the establishment Democrats. In all this talk about Trump's collusion with Russia, his obstruction of justice, and talk about applying the rule of law even to presidents, I have not heard one single politician mention the elephant in the room.

About 8 years ago, Obama refused to charge Bush and Pence with war crimes even though they confessed to them in press conferences. In fact Obama did not charge any senior Bush administration officials with war crimes. Only a few low ranking servicemen at the bottom of the command chain faced any charges, if I remember correctly.

When asked why, Obama gave a bullshit excuse about "looking forward instead of back" as if the direction we face excuses throwing the Magna Carta under the bus.

Now suddenly establishment Democrats are talking big talk about holding Trump accountable for his crimes.

You know what? Great. If Trump did in fact commit crimes, then he should face the same punishment any other citizen would for those same crimes, because we are supposed to be a nation of laws rather than men, and we should at least be able to live up to the standards of the British people we rebelled from.

Hold the Trump administration accountable. Great. Lock them all up if we can prove that they are guilty.

But you Democrats have to explain why the law should apply to Trump and Pence when you refused to apply it to Bush and Cheney. I'm not going to expect this of Republicans because we all know they don't believe in the rule of law, but you?

You have explaining to do, senator Feinstein. You and all the other establishment Democrats have a lot of explaining to do.

Trump was only following expectations you Democrats created, the expectation that the president can commit virtually any crime without fear of consequences.

If the Bernie/Nader or bust crowd would just make their vote count, we wouldn't have to rely on tricks to hamper the republicans agenda. I'm sorry, but voting or lack of voting has consequences.