Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "CNN" channel.

  1. 318
  2. 106
  3. 100
  4. 54
  5. 39
  6. 36
  7. 32
  8. 30
  9. 30
  10. 29
  11. 26
  12. 22
  13. 21
  14. 21
  15. 21
  16. 19
  17. 18
  18. 17
  19. 16
  20. 16
  21. 16
  22. 16
  23. 16
  24. 15
  25. 15
  26. 15
  27. 15
  28. 15
  29. 14
  30. 14
  31. 14
  32. 14
  33. 13
  34. 12
  35. 12
  36. 12
  37. 12
  38. 11
  39. 11
  40. 10
  41. 10
  42. 10
  43. 9
  44. 9
  45. 9
  46. 8
  47. 8
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50. 8
  51. 8
  52. 8
  53. 7
  54. 7
  55. 7
  56. 7
  57. 7
  58. 7
  59. 7
  60. 7
  61. 7
  62. 7
  63. 7
  64. 7
  65. 7
  66. 7
  67. 6
  68. 6
  69. 6
  70. 6
  71. 6
  72. 6
  73. 6
  74. 6
  75. 6
  76. 6
  77. 6
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 5
  83. 5
  84. 5
  85. 5
  86. 5
  87. 5
  88. 5
  89. 5
  90. 5
  91. 5
  92. 5
  93. 5
  94. 5
  95. 5
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 4
  108. 4
  109. 4
  110. 4
  111. 4
  112. 4
  113. 4
  114. 4
  115. 4
  116. 4
  117. 4
  118. 4
  119. 4
  120. 4
  121. 4
  122.  @cdani9972  You make a good point. Cippollone took the oath to uphold the Constitution, and part of that duty is to protect the principle of Executive Privilege. Even if a court has ruled that there is probable cause to pierce that shield, a WhiteHouse Counsel’s duty is to maintain as much of that privilege as he can on any matters outside the investigation. The committee investigators will have to ask very specific questions with regard to matters directly involving Trump, counsel he gave Trump, and things that Trump asked or told him. They probably can’t ask, for example, for him to go through any particular day and what he did and who did he talk to on that day. They’ll have to ask specifically, “Did you have a meeting with so-and-so?” So I don’t think this is a fishing expedition. I think the committee has a good idea of what questions to ask, and how to ask them. I don’t think he’s a hostile witness, just a witness that isn’t free to volunteer information or answer certain questions. He is constitutionally constrained. In fact, I think the committee has been trying to portray him sympathetically (so as not to alienate him?). Here is what I think we will get: More on the day of January 6th and the part he played in keeping Trump from going to the Capitol. More on the pardons and his interactions with Kushner. Interactions with Mark Meadows. The attempt to replace Rosen with a new AG. (I’m not sure how much info he can divulge on Meadows and Kushner, given his constitutional constraints.)
    4
  123. 4
  124. 4
  125. 4
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208.  @netizen_m3919  I think this is on the nose. Even emails can be subpoenaed (and I seem to remember a bit of a brouhaha over a certain Secretary of State doing an end run by using a private email server). In certain cases, official phone calls (for example, between the President and another world leader) get officially recorded, but any phone call can be recorded on either end. (Which doesn’t even get into clandestine intercepts.) Additionally, top officials memorialize conversations—they take notes during and just after conversations with the President and other top officials to keep a record of the conversations. Comey’s last conversation with Trump is an example. Most of this stuff is protected by executive privilege, depending on the nature of the conversation. Under extraordinary circumstances, congressional subpoenas can pierce this privilege. Also, executive privilege doesn’t protect the information from succeeding presidents or their administrations. If communications provide documentation of presidential crimes, there’s a good chance they’ll come to light, sooner or later. A President and his team can adapt to these conditions in two ways (or two and a half, as I’ll explain). One is to keep everything above board and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. One point five is “legal findings”, in which the White House Counsel formulates a legal justification for certain actions. And two is the President and his advisers can behave like the mob, like a criminal organization evading the keeping of records of their crimes or trying to hide such records. Both Bush and Obama engaged in 1.5 type dealings—we can debate the ethics and morals of this method another time. I think Trump has a type 2 mindset, and everyone inside knew it. Some would make recordings and keep their own records to cover their asses or even to document malfeasance.
    3
  209. 3
  210. 2
  211. I’m going to say one thing and then explain why Trump and his administration are the exception. We have a proud tradition in the U.S. of peaceful transition of power when one party leaves the White House and the rival party assumes the presidency. This includes the tradition of the succeeding President not going after the previous president as a political enemy. The Obama administration didn’t persecute Bush. Bush didn’t go after Clinton, and Clinton didn’t go after Bush Sr. Trump violated this tradition, making all sorts of false claims about the Obama administration and ordering the supposedly neutral Department of Justice to investigate. When those investigations revealed nothing, Trump persisted in claiming Obama engaged in criminal acts (without specifying or providing any evidence whatsoever). On top of this, Trump and his henchmen have engaged in egregious corruption and violations of the law *that we know about*, with much more suspected, but not yet proven, because Trump has violated common practice of transparency. So the question is, should we return to precedent or should the Trump administration be held accountable for its corruption, its criminal acts, and its breaking of legal and political norms? The answer is that Trump and his minions have acted so egregiously, with such malice, and have done so much damage that they MUST be held accountable. To not hold them accountable is to encourage criminality. We must prosecute the most powerful who abuse that power as warning to other crooks. Only then, after these criminals and grifters have been made to face consequences, can we return to the precedent of peaceful transition. It’s a delusion to think Trump will peacefully hand over the presidency anyway. I suggest a concurrent investigation that would include criminal investigations and a public truth commission to root out both criminal actors and those that might be shielded from the law, but who directed unlawful acts. We generally can’t retroactively criminalize acts done legally, even if those acts were done with malice and intent to damage the country. But we can hold them up to the light of truth and the moral scorn of public opinion. Meanwhile, those that actually broke the law must feel the full weight of the Justice system.
    2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445.  @suomynona4607  It’s still the best legal argument Trump has in his defense. The legality or constitutionality –is–arguable. One can make the argument that Congress is overstepping its bounds. But Trump would rather use this impeachment trial to promote his lie that the election was stolen from him. Because he knows he controls enough members of the jury and because he can use the impeachment to scam more money from his dopey followers. There’s a couple of reasons why it was important that Trump’s legal team make the unconstitutionality argument the center of his strategy, one reason being that it provides senators political cover to acquit. However, the main reason is that if he’s convicted by the Senate (which isn’t impossible), he can later challenge the the conviction if he runs again. Can you imagine how that goes? In 2023 or 2024, he decides to run. Who enforces the conviction penalties and prevents his name from going on state ballots? Do primary opponents have to take him to court? Does the Democratic Nominee do it? That’s when the constitutionality defense comes into play, and a counter to that defense is, Why didn’t you use that defense at the time of your trial? Ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow Trump from running would be decided in the Supreme Court, because whatever lower courts decide, it will be appealed until it gets to the Supreme Court. And they will determine if it’s allowed by the Constitution. And Trump doesn’t automatically have the SCOTUS conservative votes on his side. Anyway, that’s my non-lawyer analysis. Trump arguing the un-, non-, or extra-Constitutionality is his best long term bet, and it helps Republican Senators. But he would rather scam his followers of their money in the short term. I’m not saying you’re wrong to argue with blake schramm, but that the thing you’re arguing apparently has been taken off the table in favor of the “stolen election” argument. But I could be wrong about this. It’s an odd case. Trump could make both arguments. Unlike a trial in a court of law, he could have two different teams of lawyers to make both arguments. At the end of the day, I don’t understand Trump’s strategy here, other than he wants to fundraise off of the impeachment—which he could do anyway. Is this not about any of the above, but about rallying the troops for another coup attempt?
    1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. Please explain why Zionism is flawed. Anti-Zionism (from what I have seen of it) is a criticism of Zionism that is flawed and based on falsifications of history or ignorance of history. Theories of settler colonialism don’t apply to people returning to their homeland, rejoining fellow Jews that were already living there. Jews were living in the Levant even after most of them were exiled. The Ottoman Empire invited back the Sephardic Jews that were expelled from Spain in 1492. Invited isn’t even the right word. Jews were encouraged to immigrate to the middle east by the Ottomans because the Ottomans saw them as a group of hard working, educated, and resilient people. This stands in stark contrast with the treatment of Jews during most of their time in Europe. Jews would settle in one country for a century or two only to be expelled by that countries rulers. This happened time and again. They were not considered citizens in their countries of residence but as foreigners. And some call them European colonists? They were European refugees, fleeing a Europe that had hated them and attacked them for a millennia before that hatred culminated in the Shoah. Israel needs to declare a ceasefire immediately and immediately expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid. We have influence on Israel and we should use that influence to push for these two things. But the Anti-Zionism I’ve heard expressed in these protests IS anti-semitism. I don’t care what Bernie Sanders says. And it’s all very fine to criticize the nationalism of others when you’re enjoying all the benefits of living in a stable nation-state. Why aren’t you protesting against the Palestinians’ desire to have their own state? Your anti-nationalism seems selective, and that is highly sus.
    1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1