General Discussion

imanamerican63

(13,811 posts) Sun May 14, 2017, 05:52 PM May 2017

Who on DU, think Sen. Graham is caving in to Trump?

He refuses to say that a independent investigation should be put in place. He was on Meet the Press and I was confused by his answers. He said there is no proof of collusion and if they find any, he will take the steps to go further. Is he blinded by the bright lights? We just had a president fire the FBI leader, he fired the acting AG and a judge, who were doing their jobs. This is called a direct interference with an a federal investigation. That is a crime, Sen. Graham! Open your eyes and follow the laws.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who on DU, think Sen. Graham is caving in to Trump? (Original Post) imanamerican63 May 2017 OP

He's always had Trump's back! 50 Shades Of Blue May 2017 #1

he's trying to have it botth ways... like all of the "supposed" 'principaled' conservatives hlthe2b May 2017 #2

I don't think he's caving. Graham is as cautious lawyer & politician and he's waiting for proof napi21 May 2017 #3

True! imanamerican63 May 2017 #4

Why do you think Trump chose him to send his "tax letter" to? kentuck May 2017 #5

he's nothing more than one more republican....partisan to the bone. spanone May 2017 #6

I think he's also waiting to see what McCain is going to do or say..n/t monmouth4 May 2017 #7

Graham Cracker & Maverick are playing good cop /bad cop MedusaX May 2017 #8

The Russians probably gave him blackmail stuff against Sen Graham kimbutgar May 2017 #9

He's Playing Both Sides of the Fence Leith May 2017 #10

50 Shades Of Blue

(10,036 posts)

1. He's always had Trump's back!

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:56 PM

May 2017

hlthe2b

(102,343 posts)

2. he's trying to have it botth ways... like all of the "supposed" 'principaled' conservatives

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:56 PM

May 2017

napi21

(45,806 posts)

3. I don't think he's caving. Graham is as cautious lawyer & politician and he's waiting for proof

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:59 PM

May 2017

of possible law braking. You & I may believe thast exists akewady, but it really doesn't.

imanamerican63

(13,811 posts)

4. True!

Reply to napi21 (Reply #3)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:00 PM

May 2017

kentuck

(111,110 posts)

5. Why do you think Trump chose him to send his "tax letter" to?

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:00 PM

May 2017

It was to make him feel important.

spanone

(135,861 posts)

6. he's nothing more than one more republican....partisan to the bone.

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:03 PM

May 2017

monmouth4

(9,709 posts)

7. I think he's also waiting to see what McCain is going to do or say..n/t

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:42 PM

May 2017

MedusaX

(1,129 posts)

8. Graham Cracker & Maverick are playing good cop /bad cop

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:49 PM

May 2017

This keeps them atop the fence line
while they try to finish eating their cake...

(McCain gets tough while graham supports45
then they switch roles for the next round)

Being a lawyer, he can craft a statement that is legally true but implicitly false...

Collusion, as it is 'legally' defined, is not really the right nomenclature for the acts of 45.....
but it is the current terminology being used to describe the existence of a nefarious relationship between 45& russia

Proof, legally, is determined by a judge or jury concluding that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish proof of guilt, of a crime, of the charges made

He can legally & truthfully say he has not seen 'proof' of anything....
Even though
He may have seen evidence of acts consistent with the definition of seditious conspiracy

So, it is true that he has not seen proof of collusion...
but it is an implicitly false statement because it implies that he has not seen any evidence of any inappropriate acts by 45.

Seditious conspiracy is a crime that is committed when two or more persons conspire to forcibly:
a. destroy or overthrow the U.S. government;
b. create obstacles or prevent the execution of U.S. laws;
c. oppose the authority of the U.S. government; or d. unlawfully possess or take property that belong to the nation.
The first amendment of the U.S. constitution protects people who have differing ideas from rest of the population.
But these rights are not available to persons who make threats. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that free speech extends to protests, the exchange of ideas, and points in debate, but it does not include direct threats to a person's safety.

The following is an example of a federal statute on seditious conspiracy:

18 USCS § 2384. Seditious Conspiracy.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/seditious-conspiracy/

kimbutgar

(21,181 posts)

9. The Russians probably gave him blackmail stuff against Sen Graham

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:03 PM

May 2017

Stuff that lindshe has been keep hidden in his closet.

Leith

(7,813 posts)

10. He's Playing Both Sides of the Fence

Reply to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:15 PM

May 2017

If everyone involved in the investigation is fired, how the hell is anyone going to find proof of collusion?

If there's proof, let's dig it out and prosecute. If there's no proof, then let the world know and clear the names of the innocents. How hard can that concept be?

Reply to this discussion