The AOC Thread

[WyattEarp]

What power does a congress person have to control their district?
Apparently the bobolinski bloke never did articulate the behaviors that would fall under RICO.

It's like corruption. That's a category. There are specific corrupt things though which are the crimes. Bribery, installing friends into conflict of interest scenarios, forcing people to hire your friends, getting kickbacks etc. Those are the specific crimes. They are all forms of corruption. Thus if I accuse you of corruption I'm not articulating a crime. I have to say " you took bribes" or something like that.

It's not mysterious.

You can read my post above. Why would someone testifying to Congress be required to detail the crimes in question?

We can argue about the nuances, but I do think when you are a public official it is a crime to have your family collecting and receiving favors monetary or otherwise using your name. Is it easy to prove quid pro quo? No, not given how are current laws are applied. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be inquiries. That's my opinion. That's all. It's not the end of the Republic.

If you are so concerned about there being no crime here, did you ever express your concern that Congressmen Schiff, Swalwell, etc. didn't express an actual crime when they repeatedly alluded to Trump's collusion with Russians? Just curious.

 

[kherg007]

You can read my post above. Why would someone testifying to Congress be required to detail the crimes in question?

We can argue about the nuances, but I do think when you are a public official it is a crime to have your family collecting and receiving favors monetary or otherwise using your name. Is it easy to prove quid pro quo? No, not given how are current laws are applied. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be inquiries. That's my opinion. That's all. It's not the end of the Republic.

If you are so concerned about there being no crime here, did you ever express your concern that Congressmen Schiff, Swalwell, etc. didn't express an actual crime when they repeatedly alluded to Trump's collusion with Russians? Just curious.

They did. Contact with known Russian agents. Lies about contacts with Russians. Specific indictments of specific Russians. The Mueller report outlines 12 instances of obstruction of justice. They didn't just say "he obstructed justice. Mueller outlines the specific acts that constitute obstruction of justice.
That's the difference.
These guys start with a category, make the accusation, then seek the evidence.
Mueller got the evidence then made the accusation. The Dem congressmen repeated this allegations.

 

[WyattEarp]

They did. Contact with known Russian agents. Lies about contacts with Russians. Specific indictments of specific Russians. The Mueller report outlines 12 instances of obstruction of justice. They didn't just say "he obstructed justice. Mueller outlines the specific acts that constitute obstruction of justice.
That's the difference.
These guys start with a category, make the accusation, then seek the evidence.
Mueller got the evidence then made the accusation. The Dem congressmen repeated this allegations.

Even if I was as passionate as you are about this, I still don't know what the initial crime was with "collusion". Talking to Russians? Knowing Russians? There's Russians all over Washington and NYC. The Russians weren't really considered an enemy at the time.

I have always said the House Republicans will have an impossible time proving Joe Biden acted criminally with his family's overseas business dealings. I'm not sure why it's such a travesty that they look into it. I'm not even that upset it's a political circus. It almost always is. Whether it's inquiries into Trump, Biden, Kavanaugh, etc.

 

[WyattEarp]

These guys start with a category, make the accusation, then seek the evidence.
Mueller got the evidence then made the accusation.

By the way with all this hemming and hawing that Bobulinski should be able to detail specific crimes, aren't corruption and RICO violations a category? Aren't you actually undermining the point some have made here that AOC put Bobulinski and House Republicans in their place?

These guys House Republicans start with a category, make the accusation, then seek the evidence. The key difference is House Committees don't have the investigatory powers of Special Counsels and the DOJ. Even their subpoena power is impeded by political forces.

 

[kherg007]

Even if I was as passionate as you are about this, I still don't know what the initial crime was with "collusion". Talking to Russians? Knowing Russians? There's Russians all over Washington and NYC. The Russians weren't really considered an enemy at the time.

I have always said the House Republicans will have an impossible time proving Joe Biden acted criminally with his family's overseas business dealings. I'm not sure why it's such a travesty that they look into it. I'm not even that upset it's a political circus. It almost always is. Whether it's inquiries into Trump, Biden, Kavanaugh, etc.

Lying about contact with foreign agents. That is a crime. If you have any sort of security clearance you must report this asap. All previous us presidential candidates reported foreign govts during campaigns, and even gave back the money. A Russian agent infiltrated the NRA, slept her way to the top, and was funneling Russian funds from a fake Russian gun rights organization (there are no gun rights groups in russia) to trump and other republicans. Trump asked for russias help and within hours they hacked and released info from the dems. Trumps campaign manager was deep in debt to the Russians and was leak8ng information to Russian agents. All of that is a crime. Read the Mueller report please.

 

[WyattEarp]

Lying about contact with foreign agents. That is a crime. If you have any sort of security clearance you must report this asap. All previous us presidential candidates reported foreign govts during campaigns, and even gave back the money. A Russian agent infiltrated the NRA, slept her way to the top, and was funneling Russian funds from a fake Russian gun rights organization (there are no gun rights groups in russia) to trump and other republicans. Trump asked for russias help and within hours they hacked and released info from the dems. Trumps campaign manager was deep in debt to the Russians and was leak8ng information to Russian agents. All of that is a crime. Read the Mueller report please.

This is great insight. I guess the Democratic House dropped the ball.

 

[kherg007]

This is great insight. I guess the Democratic House dropped the ball.

They did. Pelosi was pressured to impeach him for sure. Mueller even said in an ass-backwards way. "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," was his exact quote. He also quoted the DOJ statute about charging sitting presidents, and reckoned he'd send it up to the house as impeachment was the proper remedy. And, as you rightly note, they dropped it.

 

[WyattEarp]

Mueller even said in an ass-backwards way. "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," was his exact quote.

I'm sorry I really have no idea what this statement means as it relates to American jurisprudence. Some could easily say it is a politically-charged statement.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is great insight. I guess the Democratic House dropped the ball.

Bill Barr dropped the ball on behalf of rump.
He was the one that stopped the Russia collusion investigations.

 

[kherg007]

I'm sorry I really have no idea what this statement means as it relates to American jurisprudence. Some could easily say it is a politically-charged statement.

I think he was being overly lawyerly. In other words, if he was innocent, he would have said so. But, being a lawyer, and given his respect for the office, he did not want to bias the case by saying "he committed crimes." In American jurisprudence, it is jury that has to make that judgment.
He laid out all the evidence in the report for congress to take it up. A survey of US Attorneys showed they overwhelmingly would have taken up the case
A politically charged statement is "he's clearly a criminal".

 

[WyattEarp]

A survey of US Attorneys showed they overwhelmingly would have taken up the case.

Taken up a case against who? What would be the charge? I know or think the President did something criminal isn't a concrete charge to say nothing of evidence.

Similar to Biden and his family dealings, doing stupid and questionably unethical things are not always crimes. Manafort is a shady character who worked his way into the Trump campaign for four months.

The great political benefit of conspiracies is you don't actually need an actual crime or evidence. You just have to plant the seeds with innuendo.

 

[mandrill]

She is sexy, but didn't Bobulinski actually name crimes and a category of crimes? Being able to prove them is another thing, but corruption and RICO violations seem to be crimes. Bobulinski is speaking as a witness of events not as a lawyer. I'm not sure exactly why he has to describe the crimes in question.

AOC basically did what both Republican and Democrat Congressional members do at these hearings. They preach, lecture and ask questions of those testifying where the answers of those testifying that are really not important to the matter at hand.

PS- The reporter Melanie Zanona is thick and fine. I would like to see her and AOC on the floor.

View attachment 309450 View attachment 309451

Except he wasn't really asked for a technical, lawyerly explanation of the crimes. He was asked a general question as to what crimes were committed and he gave a vague, evasive, bullshit answer and was taken down by AOC as a result.

BTW Earp, I know that you are a staunch supporter of the "Biden must have committed some type of crime somewhere because he's a bad man; so it doesn't really matter what he did, and how and when he did it" gang.

But hasn't the GOP pretty much given up on this pursuit at this point? Comer looked and sounded pretty beaten after these hearings and even GymJo was looking weary and bleary.

 

[mandrill]

You can read my post above. Why would someone testifying to Congress be required to detail the crimes in question?

We can argue about the nuances, but I do think when you are a public official it is a crime to have your family collecting and receiving favors monetary or otherwise using your name. Is it easy to prove quid pro quo? No, not given how are current laws are applied. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be inquiries. That's my opinion. That's all. It's not the end of the Republic.

If you are so concerned about there being no crime here, did you ever express your concern that Congressmen Schiff, Swalwell, etc. didn't express an actual crime when they repeatedly alluded to Trump's collusion with Russians? Just curious.

But he wasn't asked to "detail the crimes in question". He was asked a general question as to what crimes he had evidence of Biden committing and he couldn't answer. He just vaguely blurted "RICO statute" to avoid just sitting there like a dummy. He could have said "Corruption" or "Theft" or "bribery", but he didn't. Because he had dickus proof of anything.

Just innuendo and bullshit.

To return to a previous question I asked you, Earp. When someone buys a $100k table at Mar-a-Lago for a Trump fundraiser, don't they expect to get a little face time with the Orange Guy or one of his immediate entourage of butt-kissing lackeys?

Or do you think they pay that $100k just for fun?

 

[WyattEarp]

But he wasn't asked to "detail the crimes in question". He was asked a general question as to what crimes he had evidence of Biden committing and he couldn't answer. He just vaguely blurted "RICO statute" to avoid just sitting there like a dummy. He could have said "Corruption" or "Theft" or "bribery", but he didn't.

Bobulinski specifically said "corruption". It's usually wise to not post in haste or anger for that matter. Perhaps you could not hear him clearly because the Congresswoman was talking over him while he tried to answer her question. I think most of us our familiar with Congress members taking that tack in committee hearings.

Whether he is correct or not isn't really pertinent here. I think even non-lawyers can understand that Bobulinski was providing testimony. He wasn't there to prosecute crimes. He is not required to provide a list of crimes.

 

[WyattEarp]

To return to a previous question I asked you, Earp. When someone buys a $100k table at Mar-a-Lago for a Trump fundraiser, don't they expect to get a little face time with the Orange Guy or one of his immediate entourage of butt-kissing lackeys?

I will gladly answer your question when you tell me when and where you asked this "previous question" of me. I only say this because I don't want to necessarily give credence to you implying I am evading your clever inquisition. Perhaps I overlooked it somewhere, but I don't recall this query.

 

[mandrill]

Bobulinski specifically said "corruption". It's usually wise to not post in haste or anger for that matter. Perhaps you could not hear him clearly because the Congresswoman was talking over him while he tried to answer her question. I think most of us our familiar with Congress members taking that tack in committee hearings.

Whether he is correct or not isn't really pertinent here. I think even non-lawyers can understand that Bobulinski was providing testimony. He wasn't there to prosecute crimes. He is not required to provide a list of crimes.

Well, actually evidence IS a list of criminal stuff that someone else has done. That's why it's "evidence".

Next time I'm in court and the Crown witness says "Mandrill's client did bad stuff. What bad stuff?..... Well, bad stuff like criminal stuff in the Criminal Code bad criminal-type stuff. That's what."

I'll keep in mind that a witness doesn't have to provide a description of the bad stuff, according to you.

 

[WyattEarp]

Well, actually evidence IS a list of criminal stuff that someone else has done. That's why it's "evidence".

Next time I'm in court and the Crown witness says "Mandrill's client did bad stuff. What bad stuff?..... Well, bad stuff like criminal stuff in the Criminal Code bad criminal-type stuff. That's what."

I'll keep in mind that a witness doesn't have to provide a description of the bad stuff, according to you.

Well, actually a witness doesn't have to "provide a description of the bad stuff". The argument of the "bad stuff" is up to the prosecutor to frame. A witness is there to provide testimony at the behest of the prosecutor or the defense as to what they saw or heard happen bad, good or otherwise. You take the testimony for what it is worth or not worth in your opinion.

Since you are an attorney, perhaps you know of a Canadian (or American) statute on the books that requires witness testimony must explicitly cite the crime(s) in question. I know it would appear I am wordsmithing, but I honestly don't recall this being required of a witness.

I get that everyone got excited about this clip of AOC in action. I hold no special animus towards her. She generally did what Congresspersons do in these hearings. If you think, this was a great line of questioning, cool. It's still just an opinion.

 

[kherg007]

Taken up a case against who? What would be the charge? I know or think the President did something criminal isn't a concrete charge to say nothing of evidence.

Similar to Biden and his family dealings, doing stupid and questionably unethical things are not always crimes. Manafort is a shady character who worked his way into the Trump campaign for four months.

The great political benefit of conspiracies is you don't actually need an actual crime or evidence. You just have to plant the seeds with innuendo.

Obstructing justice. The exact behaviors and specific evidence is spelled out in the Mueller report. That is the basis. Its only rumor and innuendo if you don't read the report. Specifics include asking people to delete meeting notes, asking people to deny things under investigation, firing someone who is investigating you then telling co-conspirators you took care of that problem is the sort of evidence.

Again, it's in the report if one reads it.

 

[WyattEarp]

Obstructing justice. The exact behaviors and specific evidence is spelled out in the Mueller report. That is the basis. Its only rumor and innuendo if you don't read the report. Specifics include asking people to delete meeting notes, asking people to deny things under investigation, firing someone who is investigating you then telling co-conspirators you took care of that problem is the sort of evidence.

Again, it's in the report if one reads it.

Perhaps you can cite the report as it relates specifically to Donald Trump. Otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory. Nobody really cared about Paul Manafort and his previous dealings. It's been awhile, but I don't remember anyone involved with Trump being prosecuted for crimes that were anything specific to Russians and the Presidential campaign.

This happened so this must have happened is innuendo. Paul Manafort discussed the campaign with a Russian operative (legal). Donald Trump must have gave his blessing (legal). Donald Trump must have promised something to Putin for favors (quid pro quo likely illegal). See how this innuendo goes.

People all over social media, generally people with deeply liberal beliefs, seem to have these ah-ha moments that didn't resonate with Congress (House Democrats included) or a great deal of the American people.

Back to the point, why is it so horrible to investigate the immediate Biden family collecting large sums of money around the world for services of questionable value? I know proving the quid pro quo in our legal system will be next to impossible, but that doesn't preclude asking the questions.

 

[kherg007]

So because someone Chooses not to look at published evidence it renders that evidence as innuendo?
30+ Russians were indicted for meddling/hacking. They lived in Russia.