"
"
Actually not a bad visual aid. However, allow me to retort...
Asked about "letting this go": not OBSTRUCT. This didn't impede any investigation.
Firing Comey: not INTENT, or at least unclear. Trump had several excellent reasons for firing Comey unrelated to the Mueller investigation. A federal employee does not and should not gain immunity to termination for poor performance merely because there's an investigation against the President; if so, every FBI director will investigate the President from now on and be unfireable. Even if they decide intent is unclear, Trump will never be indicted and convicted for this.
Tried to/attempted to: not OBSTRUCT. If there was a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice," perhaps, but I'm not going to delve into these at any greater depth.
Publicly "attacking" Michael Cohen: not OBSTRUCT nor INTENT. There are various reasons why one would criticize someone for cooperation. Consider right-wing media at the time; they made the same kinds of public criticisms, they had similar motivations; they knew an investigation was ongoing. Would you indict Breitbart for obstruction of justice for their coverage of Cohen? A First Amendment defense beats this completely.
I guess my advice to you TDSers is to focus on the McGahn thing. It's the closest thing you have to a real case. Please note that Martha Stewart got 5 months and two years probation for multiple charges, only one of which was obstruction of justice. You'd be very lucky if Trump got so much as a slap on the wrist.
If you'd read the report, it is established through witness testimony that Trump's reason for firing Comey was because he wanted to stop the investigation into Russian election interference. (He also confessed on national television) lol
Another thing that you cultists are getting incorrect consistently is that Obstruction of Justice IS ITS OWN crime. Just because Trump felt that investigating his pal, Putin was unfair, it doesn't mean he can Obstruct without consequence. Sorry, not sorry.
|
Posted byDeletedon May 5, 2019, 1:38:53 PM
|
"
"
I'm glad you have shifted from a total climate change denialist into a believer, not sure when that happened, but it makes me happy nonetheless.
I haven't changed my position on this topic in over two years. I believe global warming is real, cataclysmic, driven mostly by atmospheric carbon, and mostly non-anthropogenic. The popular myth is that it is mostly anthropogenic. In other words, the only major point of disagreement is whether it's mankind or nature as the main driver of carbon emissions. (Obviously both are drivers to some extent.)
Oh lord. Not again.
You know I can prove to you in one paragraph of science razzle dazzle that you are wrong, right?
But for the sake of amusement, let's indulge your fantasy. What is causing the rapid increase in co2 levels in the atmosphere, if not man?
"
So how does this disagreement change my views? I don't see a world without human industry escaping global warming, while the, um, anthropogenicists do. They think that if they can reduce the carbon footprint of humanity to zero, the problem would go away; I do not. I believe a net negative carbon footprint is necessary. The anthropogenicists believe "green energy" technology can save us; I think it could help, but wouldn't be enough on it's own. I'm more focused on carbon scrubbing, whether through technology or chlorophyll-based organisms. Because I think scrubbing on a massive scale is necessary, I reason that with a large enough "O2 surplus" fossil fuels might be something we could afford, but right now it's the equivalent of going into debt without a source of income. Lastly, because I view global warming as mostly caused by naturally recurring cycles, I am less worried about it striking within the next ten to twenty years; however, overall I think the job is bigger than the anthropogenicists make it out to be, so we'd need the extra time.
Because we are actually not cutting emissions rapidly or even quickly (some of us not at all, cough ahem), negative emissions are certainly not off the table to limit warming to 2C or below it.
"
In short, I find you overly alarmist and overly concerned with reducing emissions, as opposed to actively cleaning our atmosphere.
I just wanted to point out how silly this statement is. THat is all.
"
"
I'm saddened by seeing you spout the same Heartland Institute smoking-era propaganda about the Paris agreement though.
Is it perfect? Lol, it's not even binding per se, it's largely voluntary. But it's the best we could make at this point.
The non-binding thing is just one more element that makes it a clown world proposal. If it were binding, it would be a matter of serious debate whether or not it was better than nothing. In any case, merely "better than nothing" isn't good enough. It should have been rejected, and perhaps renegotiated. But when a proposal is that insulting perhaps walking away from the negotiating table completely is the correct move.
So let me get this straight, an agreement where countries strive to decarbonise in mere decades, is not beneficial at all, and not better than nothing, because...it's a voluntary non-binding 'clown proposal'?
You realise if you were put in the deciding room, you would fail to even achieve the Paris agreement, right? The politics and lobbying are horrendous. The science has been settled for over two decades now, yet still denialists like you exist.
But I guess that's why it's the biggest crisis humanity has ever known.
And Trump will go down for crimes against humanity and the planet. I guess that's one way to be remembered. Become the evil villain of mythos.
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 5, 2019, 1:40:37 PM
|
"
Actually not a bad visual aid. However, allow me to retort...
Asked about "letting this go": not OBSTRUCT. This didn't impede any investigation.
Firing Comey: not INTENT, or at least unclear. Trump had several excellent reasons for firing Comey unrelated to the Mueller investigation. A federal employee does not and should not gain immunity to termination for poor performance merely because there's an investigation against the President; if so, every FBI director will investigate the President from now on and be unfireable. Even if they decide intent is unclear, Trump will never be indicted and convicted for this.
Tried to/attempted to: not OBSTRUCT. If there was a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice," perhaps, but I'm not going to delve into these at any greater depth.
Publicly "attacking" Michael Cohen: not OBSTRUCT nor INTENT. There are various reasons why one would criticize someone for cooperation. Consider right-wing media at the time; they made the same kinds of public criticisms, they had similar motivations; they knew an investigation was ongoing. Would you indict Breitbart for obstruction of justice for their coverage of Cohen? A First Amendment defense beats this completely.
I guess my advice to you TDSers is to focus on the McGahn thing. It's the closest thing you have to a real case. Please note that Martha Stewart got 5 months and two years probation for multiple charges, only one of which was obstruction of justice. You'd be very lucky if Trump got so much as a slap on the wrist.
Asking to let go, when you are in a position of power over the person doing the investigation, especially with the whole "I want loyal people" part, is definitively an obstruction of justice. If it was done by someone that isn't in a situation of authority over Comey, it wouldn't have been an obstruction of justice. It might, however, have been an attempt to corrupt an official...
I do agree that Trump had been saying he wanted to fire Comey prior to being elected and as such, I'm not sure if it should count as obstruction or not. I mean, it *technically* could be an obstructive act. The intent however, would be pretty much impossible to prove as corrupt simply because of how often he said he wanted to fire him.
The attacks against Cohen are certainly obstructive acts as they were made to discredit him and try to make him pass for a fool. The goal was to undermine (and render invalid/useless/unusable) any information coming from his cooperation.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon May 5, 2019, 1:53:23 PMAlpha Member
|
"
But for the sake of amusement, let's indulge your fantasy. What is causing the rapid increase in co2 levels in the atmosphere, if not man?
There are many causes, but let's put it this way: during the Triassic period, temperatures were 3°C higher and atmospheric CO2 levels where more than three times current levels.
Global climate change goes through naturally occurring cycles since long before humans occupied this planet. Things have been far, far worse than they are now, and will be far, far worse again, unless we prevent it. Our hint is that the planet has come back from carbon crises before without human intervention.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon May 5, 2019, 2:01:17 PM
|
"
"
But for the sake of amusement, let's indulge your fantasy. What is causing the rapid increase in co2 levels in the atmosphere, if not man?
There are many causes, but let's put it this way: during the Triassic period, temperatures were 3°C higher and atmospheric CO2 levels where more than three times current levels.
Global climate change goes through naturally occurring cycles since long before humans occupied this planet. Things have been far, far worse than they are now, and will be far, far worse again, unless we prevent it. Our hint is that the planet has come back from carbon crises before without human intervention.
So you're saying it's...actually I don't know what you're saying.
What is this 'natural warming'? Where does it come from?
I swear I've had this discussion with you.
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 5, 2019, 2:12:22 PM
|
"
"
Actually not a bad visual aid. However, allow me to retort...
Asked about "letting this go": not OBSTRUCT. This didn't impede any investigation.
Firing Comey: not INTENT, or at least unclear. Trump had several excellent reasons for firing Comey unrelated to the Mueller investigation. A federal employee does not and should not gain immunity to termination for poor performance merely because there's an investigation against the President; if so, every FBI director will investigate the President from now on and be unfireable. Even if they decide intent is unclear, Trump will never be indicted and convicted for this.
Tried to/attempted to: not OBSTRUCT. If there was a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice," perhaps, but I'm not going to delve into these at any greater depth.
Publicly "attacking" Michael Cohen: not OBSTRUCT nor INTENT. There are various reasons why one would criticize someone for cooperation. Consider right-wing media at the time; they made the same kinds of public criticisms, they had similar motivations; they knew an investigation was ongoing. Would you indict Breitbart for obstruction of justice for their coverage of Cohen? A First Amendment defense beats this completely.
I guess my advice to you TDSers is to focus on the McGahn thing. It's the closest thing you have to a real case. Please note that Martha Stewart got 5 months and two years probation for multiple charges, only one of which was obstruction of justice. You'd be very lucky if Trump got so much as a slap on the wrist.
Asking to let go, when you are in a position of power over the person doing the investigation, especially with the whole "I want loyal people" part, is definitively an obstruction of justice. If it was done by someone that isn't in a situation of authority over Comey, it wouldn't have been an obstruction of justice. It might, however, have been an attempt to corrupt an official...
I do agree that Trump had been saying he wanted to fire Comey prior to being elected and as such, I'm not sure if it should count as obstruction or not. I mean, it *technically* could be an obstructive act. The intent however, would be pretty much impossible to prove as corrupt simply because of how often he said he wanted to fire him.
The attacks against Cohen are certainly obstructive acts as they were made to discredit him and try to make him pass for a fool. The goal was to undermine (and render invalid/useless/unusable) any information coming from his cooperation.
There are other impeachable crimes here too:
Abuse of Power * Witness Tampering * Bribery
|
Posted byDeletedon May 5, 2019, 2:15:37 PM
|
"
"
"
Actually not a bad visual aid. However, allow me to retort...
Asked about "letting this go": not OBSTRUCT. This didn't impede any investigation.
Firing Comey: not INTENT, or at least unclear. Trump had several excellent reasons for firing Comey unrelated to the Mueller investigation. A federal employee does not and should not gain immunity to termination for poor performance merely because there's an investigation against the President; if so, every FBI director will investigate the President from now on and be unfireable. Even if they decide intent is unclear, Trump will never be indicted and convicted for this.
Tried to/attempted to: not OBSTRUCT. If there was a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice," perhaps, but I'm not going to delve into these at any greater depth.
Publicly "attacking" Michael Cohen: not OBSTRUCT nor INTENT. There are various reasons why one would criticize someone for cooperation. Consider right-wing media at the time; they made the same kinds of public criticisms, they had similar motivations; they knew an investigation was ongoing. Would you indict Breitbart for obstruction of justice for their coverage of Cohen? A First Amendment defense beats this completely.
I guess my advice to you TDSers is to focus on the McGahn thing. It's the closest thing you have to a real case. Please note that Martha Stewart got 5 months and two years probation for multiple charges, only one of which was obstruction of justice. You'd be very lucky if Trump got so much as a slap on the wrist.
Asking to let go, when you are in a position of power over the person doing the investigation, especially with the whole "I want loyal people" part, is definitively an obstruction of justice. If it was done by someone that isn't in a situation of authority over Comey, it wouldn't have been an obstruction of justice. It might, however, have been an attempt to corrupt an official...
I do agree that Trump had been saying he wanted to fire Comey prior to being elected and as such, I'm not sure if it should count as obstruction or not. I mean, it *technically* could be an obstructive act. The intent however, would be pretty much impossible to prove as corrupt simply because of how often he said he wanted to fire him.
The attacks against Cohen are certainly obstructive acts as they were made to discredit him and try to make him pass for a fool. The goal was to undermine (and render invalid/useless/unusable) any information coming from his cooperation.
There are other impeachable crimes here too:
Abuse of Power * Witness Tampering * Bribery
Oh I agree, Abuse of power, witness tampering and bribery would def put Hillary in prison.
|
Posted bydiablofdbon May 5, 2019, 2:19:17 PM
|
"
"
But for the sake of amusement, let's indulge your fantasy. What is causing the rapid increase in co2 levels in the atmosphere, if not man?
There are many causes, but let's put it this way: during the Triassic period, temperatures were 3°C higher and atmospheric CO2 levels where more than three times current levels.
Global climate change goes through naturally occurring cycles since long before humans occupied this planet. Things have been far, far worse than they are now, and will be far, far worse again, unless we prevent it. Our hint is that the planet has come back from carbon crises before without human intervention.
It's not a cycle.
Early on, carbon was mostly at the surface and this created warmer climate. Then all that carbon slowly got turned into petroleum and/or coal and has been mostly stored in the crust of the earth. The only time levels of carbon in the atmosphere spike a lot is when there's a massive extinction event (plants thrives during those periods) and there's a massive planet wide fire that then release that carbon trapped in plants.
Beside that, the carbon in the atmosphere is constantly going down as living matter dies and the carbon is slowly trapped under the layers of the planet or in the deep oceans. That is, until there's an equilibrium with the volcanic eruptions.
Humans, however, are bringing back carbon that was once trapped in the depth of our planet back into the atmosphere.
Since there has not been a major extinction event that then allowed plants to thrive and then burn, on a world wide scale *naturally*, then humans can be the only cause of the increased carbon in the atmosphere.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon May 5, 2019, 2:20:32 PMAlpha Member
|
"
Oh I agree, Abuse of power, witness tampering and bribery would def put Hillary in prison.
Trump (and Putin) have failed you in this and so many other promises. Why aren't you angry with them?
|
Posted byDeletedon May 5, 2019, 2:22:52 PM
|
"
"
"
But for the sake of amusement, let's indulge your fantasy. What is causing the rapid increase in co2 levels in the atmosphere, if not man?
There are many causes, but let's put it this way: during the Triassic period, temperatures were 3°C higher and atmospheric CO2 levels where more than three times current levels.
Global climate change goes through naturally occurring cycles since long before humans occupied this planet. Things have been far, far worse than they are now, and will be far, far worse again, unless we prevent it. Our hint is that the planet has come back from carbon crises before without human intervention.
It's not a cycle.
Early on, carbon was mostly at the surface and this created warmer climate. Then all that carbon slowly got turned into petroleum and/or coal and has been mostly stored in the crust of the earth. The only time levels of carbon in the atmosphere spike a lot is when there's a massive extinction event (plants thrives during those periods) and there's a massive planet wide fire that then release that carbon trapped in plants.
Beside that, the carbon in the atmosphere is constantly going down as living matter dies and the carbon is slowly trapped under the layers of the planet or in the deep oceans. That is, until there's an equilibrium with the volcanic eruptions.
Humans, however, are bringing back carbon that was once trapped in the depth of our planet back into the atmosphere.
Since there has not been a major extinction event that then allowed plants to thrive and then burn, on a world wide scale *naturally*, then humans can be the only cause of the increased carbon in the atmosphere.
Science and facts stifle their political beliefs.
|
Posted byDeletedon May 5, 2019, 2:25:21 PM
|
