Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

kbd512 · 2019-05-27 12:55:27

SpaceNut,

Actually, it's the criminals from the previous administration and their media lackeys who are squirming as they watch their public support erode. They spare no opportunity to accuse their political opposition of the very crimes that they're guilty of committing, in order to deflect attention away from the growing list of felonies committed by the organized criminal activities of former President Obama's administration. It's also hilarious that the Democrat-run LA Times opines that President Trump has claimed anything without proof, seeing as how every left wing media entity in the country has incessantly claimed or insinuated that President Trump conspired with the Russians, was a Russian agent, or outright traitor to his country, over the past three years to distract attention away from the organized criminal activities committed by former President Obama's administration.

When we reach the end of this increasingly obvious political charade / distraction campaign to avoid prosecution for weaponizing the law enforcement and intelligence apparatus agains political opponents, whereupon the Democrats of former President Obama's administration are fully exposed as the criminally corrupt cretins that they've always been, you'll only have yourself left to blame for perpetuating this absurdity. America's laws are not political in nature, nor should they ever become political in nature, and the American people are fed up with the criminality and increasingly absurd lies of the Democrats and RINOs.

You've exclusively posted one-sided political opinion and commentary from know-nothings associated with our clueless left wing media for a good solid three years now. Neither the election results nor the Mueller Report were "teachable moments", as former President Obama put it. The media sources you cite are every bit as clueless about what goes on in the White House as they were about the election results. Moreover, the Democrats' deception campaign is failing miserably. Everyday American's aren't buying it anymore. Here's a tip, though. If Democrats want Americans to buy into the Democrat Party's "big lies", then the Democrats can't lie about every silly little thing or people will recognize the behavior for exactly what it is. The overt partisanship and its implicit bias has become so painfully obvious that now everyone sees it for exactly what it is.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-29 21:05:14

Mueller gave a statement on the report to congress...“Robert Mueller’s statement makes it clear: Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately,”...
I am sure there is an official page somewhere but this will do https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/p … cript.html
Mueller statement today which has hightened the call for Trump impeachment proceedings

GW Johnson · 2019-05-31 08:33:54

In a very short form, Mueller's findings are (1) he found no evidence of actual conspiracy with the Russians, but he documented plenty of intent to accept help from the Russians to win the election, and (2) he found plenty of evidence for 10 instances of obstruction of justice, but could not indict due to DOJ policy, so he simply documented these crimes for Congress.

That's an oversimplification, but it is essentially the facts. The 10 counts of obstruction of justice are quite impeachable, all by themselves. However, the GOP senators will not yet vote to convict, so articles of impeachment are still a fool's errand. It will take the uncovering of something even more publicly egregious to get them to prioritize good of country above party advantage, lest they get voted out.

The ongoing investigations that seek financial and tax records will disclose the sources of Trump's investment capital and income. These are still hidden for now, but it is my opinion (and only my opinion !!!) that these will prove to be the same Russian banks that symbiotically keep themselves and Putin in power. That is because western banks want nothing more to do with Trump after 6 bankruptcies of record. If this proves to be true, then Trump is financially vulnerable to Russian bank control, and thereby Putin's control. While not a crime, it is something utterly intolerable in a US president, and therefore impeachable.

No one is currently pursuing the question of treasonous or near-treasonous behavior that cost Brennan his security clearance for publicly saying so! This is the pattern witnessed by the entire TV-viewing world: sucking up to Putin at Helsinki and other places, believing Putin over his own intelligence agencies, insulting our Allies, and sowing doubt we would uphold our NATO commitments, thus weakening the Alliance (something the Russians tried and failed to do, under two governments, over some 7 decades). Treason or near-treason is definitely impeachable; this needs pursuing.

It is my opinion that these three avenues, taken together, should be egregious enough that the GOP senators would have to do their duty to put country first over party, and do an honest vote in any impeachment trial.

I just do not see any signs of that yet. McConnell has "convicted" himself out of his own mouth for prioritizing party advantage above good of the country, no matter what. That's not a crime, but it should be.

GW

SpaceNut · 2019-05-31 17:43:32

The document of conspiracy would be a means that was communicated that is lasting long after the obstruction of allowing that to still be around...in content of conversation that might have been recorded, a not of any form which has the content to request action....circled by lawyers means no direct communication was made as illustrated by cohen but there was at least one taping which did catch just that....

kbd512 · 2019-05-31 20:15:00

GW,

You don't seem to know the difference between a crime and a personal belief about what constitutes a crime that still has nothing to do with the as-written laws that do define what constitutes a crime. Indicting someone for a crime requires tangible evidence that a law was violated. After the tens of millions of dollars spent on Clinton campaign lawyers / campaign donors- and Mueller only hired political partisans who presumably didn't like President Trump since they collectively gave tens of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential election campaign, hundreds of subpoenas for documents, millions of documents reviewed, Mueller found no evidence resulting in an indictment of President Trump for any crime. He had his chance to indict President Trump, if he thought he had a case, but he didn't because he knew from the word "go" that he didn't have a case. Not one single person who was indicted by Mueller was indicted over anything whatsoever to do with President Trump's Presidential election campaign. Period. Mueller had access to President Trump's taxes, bank statements, the bank statements of companies he previously owned or sat on the board of, and probably knew what he had for lunch and who he was having lunch with. Your opinion that some course of action that President Trump has taken that you don't agree with actually constitutes a crime is purely your opinion and nothing more.

Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party nor any other political party will ever convict President Trump of anything because they have no such power. Sitting judges and juries "convict" people in courts of law, not you, not me, not the clowns in the media that you listen to, nor any political party clowns that you care to name off. In this case, a federal district court would have to convict President Trump of a crime after the US Attorney for the District of Columbia refers a case for prosecution upon receiving a vote for impeachment by Congress. Impeaching someone you don't like, simply because you don't like them is, as you put it, a fool's errand. Since the Democrats are just a bunch of fools with no intent or desire to govern, that's all they have left, now that this series of sham investigations by people with actual policing or judicial powers is over. In another thread you opined that President Trump's "climate scientist" should reserve his opinions for topics he knows something about. I think that's very good advice and equally applicable to your factually invalid ideas regarding what constitutes a crime and who can convict someone of a crime. The very wording you used in Post #28 makes it mind-bogglingly obvious to me that you don't know anything about federal law and should probably stick to opinions regarding something you do know something about.

It's equally amazing to me that you're still clinging to this false narrative about President Trump somehow colluding with or being beholden to President Putin. It's just another political fabrication- a falsehood perpetrated for political purposes on low-information people who believe whatever brand of BS they like best. How do we know this:

1. Former President Obama wouldn't even launch missile strikes to defend the Syrian people from their murderous government. President Trump turned the airbase that launched the attack into a smoking hole in the ground.
2. Later on, our SOF massacred a bunch of Russian SF and military contractors in Syria with artillery strikes when they stupidly attacked an American position there.
3. Later still, the most punishing sanctions against Russia were enacted and President Trump began enforcing those sanctions.
4. Similarly, former President Obama never armed the Ukrainians to fight against the Russians. President Trump gave the Ukrainians anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile systems, munitions, and small arms to kill the Russian invaders.
5. President Trump told the Russians' embassy staff to leave America.

Yeah, President Trump's "relationship" with President Putin is downright cozy. Both of them are playing cat-and-mouse games with strategic bombers, warships, and geopolitical insurgencies. When in our history did we last do that? Oh, yes, the Cold War.

Brennan is a real traitor and a communist, by his own repeated admission. That little commie shouldn't be anywhere near classified information, at all or ever, but former President Obama wasn't known for his brilliant foreign policy. In point of fact, President Obama had no foreign policy. That might be why his administration, or more specifically former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, permitted the sale of a substantial portion of our Uranium to Rosatom. Brennan, along with his fellow criminals in the Democrat Party, attempted a coup against President Trump. That failed spectacularly. Now his rear end is in a sling, which is exactly where it belongs. CIA shouldn't be run by a street thug / communist who thinks he gets to weigh in on who America may elect to the Presidency. That said, the CIA is famous for its election interference in foreign countries. My surmise is that with a communist traitor running CIA, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that they were up to their usual tricks over here. Heck, one of their former clandestine service agents even admitted that that's what they were doing shortly after the election was over.

Any country that is an "ally" of the United States, that signs a defense agreement with the United States wherein the "ally" pledges certain monetary resources for its own defense against our common enemies, had better live up to that agreement or have a really good reason why it can't. After decades of not honoring that agreement, President Trump is the first US President with the backbone to call our "allies" who were not honoring their agreement out on it.

Most Republican senators are putting country over party. Democrat senators aren't even governing. That's why there's so much human feces and used needles in the streets of those coastal cities that are bastions of Democrat control that you can't even walk without a pair of puncture resistant waders. San Francisco used to be an absolutely beautiful city, but then Democrats happened. I don't really care if they get to come up with all the new ideas, they just shouldn't be permitted to ever run anything because they constantly prove that they can't and people like you constantly make excuses for why their nonsense is better than a properly governed city or country. Anyway, our precious Democrats are STILL too busy throwing a temper tantrum after the American electorate gave them the single digit salute for failing to come up with, let alone actually implement, anything remotely resembling sensible governance policies. Just like you, those Democrats still haven't received the message.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-31 20:50:22

Law actually reads that you can not indict a sitting president only impeach....

Taxes were still shielded from mueller as they are still embroiled in supeona wrestling....

Any conviction of crimes for Trump will happen after Trump is out of office.

Allies that have gone with the UN flags for the US are supporting by putting troops there when they could have just sent money...thats silly...

kbd512 · 2019-05-31 21:21:42

SpaceNut,

The "law" you refer to has never been tested in a court of law, therefore no ruling to set precedent on how or when that law applies exists. The application of the law is part of the nuance of our legal system.

Mueller never said that President Trump's taxes were withheld from him and he had legal power to subpoena President Trump's tax returns, if he so chose. If he didn't exercise his legal authority to investigate, then that's on him, not President Trump.

Allies who don't meet their defense spending obligations aren't meeting those obligations by sending a handful of troops as a token display of support. We have allies who do meet their defense spending obligations, so that clearly can be done if it's prioritized properly. Our NATO allies all signed defense spending agreements, which would be another one of those legal documents that Democrats never read or heed whenever it suits their purposes, whereupon they're obligated to abide by the terms of the agreement or to renegotiate. Since they never even attempted to renegotiate, I can only surmise that they never had any intention of abiding by the terms of the agreement. That's not being much of an "ally", if you ask me. Fair weather "friends" are the worst kind.

GW Johnson · 2019-06-01 09:26:35

Mueller's report does indeed document evidence that crimes of obstruction (and of campaign finance) were committed. If you do not know that, then you have not read Mueller's report. For shame, any of you holding forth about something you have not read.

I have. It's a long read, and very easy to get lost in all the legalities. Which is why Mueller needs to testify on TV before Congress: so the public will get a sense of what is really in his report. Simple as that. Most members of the public will not read 400+ pages of legalese. They need it read for them. Simple as that.

That being said, there is a reason impeachment is defined in the Constitution as something done by Congress, NOT the courts! It's not about committing a crime or not, the way court cases are. It's fundamentally about breaching the public trust, the common thread behind the "high crimes and misdemeanors" and similar language. Look at the dictionary definition of the term "misdemeanor", and consider what it meant in 1789.

This process still needs to play out. As I said, the public needs to hear Mueller read or interpret parts of his report before Congress on TV. Congress needs to chase the financial and tax records, to determine just how in hoc Trump was, and is, to Russian banks. Mueller documented evidence of intent to accept help winning the election via Clinton's stolen emails, with quite a bit of documented intent to give Russia sanctions relief in return. If that's not bribery and corruption, then what is? "Bribery" is another of those words used in describing the impeachment process in the Constitution, by the way.

All that being said, the status is this: Mueller documented a lot. Some of that documents crimes committed, but not charged by the indictment process. The rest of it documents where others should start looking, that being both the courts and Congress. It's not really a call to impeachment, per se, but very most definitely a call to investigate. NO ONE who has actually read the thing can deny that, unless he has a countering agenda or purpose (which Barr did).

There's a real problem with rushing to impeachment here: currently no chance of conviction in the Senate. Trumpism is a belief system, and most of the GOP senators are caught up in it, one way or another. Generally speaking, you cannot convince a "true believer" (in any belief system) with facts. To do so requires verifiable facts of something so egregious as to grossly outweigh the preferred belief itself. That hasn't happened yet, 10 counts of un-indicted obstruction of justice notwithstanding.

Give it about another year of Congressional committee investigations, and this egregious thing or things will surface (slow surfacing of bad behaviors is the trend here since the campaign started in 2015). Donne right, this happens summer 20200, before the election. Doesn't matter whether an impeachment process then starts or not. If the egregious thing or things surfaces (I think they will, but that's just an educated guess or opinion on my part), then his voter base will crumble, and he will be defeated for re-election. Or impeached before the election. Doesn't matter.

It's time for cooler heads to prevail. They're in the middle, politically. Neither the far left nor the far right is trustable here, we've already seen that. Let the process play out. If Trump is innocent, he will be vindicated. If he is guilty, the country is better off without him in the White House. Simple as that.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-06-01 09:42:36)

kbd512 · 2019-06-01 12:03:13

GW,

Impeachment

Your interpretation of the impeachment process is just one of about 4 different schools of thought. It's the "mob rule" mentality that most Democrats share and absurdly childish in nature. Basically, your theory of how and why a President may be impeached is entirely dependent upon which political party has a majority in the House and the Senate, assuming the opposing political party merely wants to get rid of any President who is not a member of their political party.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure

From the article:

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

President Trump does not serve at the pleasure of Congress, he serves at the pleasure of the American electorate. If he does not serve at the pleasure of the American electorate, then every President serves at the pleasure of Congress and the next Republican majority Congress can subvert the will of the people, regarding who they elected as President, with a simple impeachment proceeding and vote. This has never been done to any past President and there's no reason to set a new authoritarian precedent, merely because one political party doesn't like the policies of the other political party. As far as I'm concerned, if Congress doesn't like our choice of President, then that's just too bad. President Trump was duly elected to office and has done a better job of running the Executive than any other President in recent history.

Campaign Finance

How many indictments were handed down over campaign finance?

If the evidence was so strong, then there should be at least one such indictment. I've read all of the indictments from the charging documents submitted to the courts. There was not a single campaign finance law violation indictment that was ever brought before a court against any member of President Trump's election campaign.

Obstruction of Justice

The obstruction charges are just laughable. Members appointed to positions within America's intelligence apparatus by the previous administration attempted a coup against President Trump using our CIA and FBI and paid foreign actors which amounted to a real conspiracy against the United States. False accusations of "Russian collusion" (no such crime ever existed and the Mueller Report concluded that no American "conspired", an actual crime, with the Russians to do anything at all) and they failed. A coup against the elected President has always been a real federal crime.

How exactly does one obstruct an attempted coup, a blatantly unlawful activity, and then get charged with a crime merely for calling out the fraudulent investigation for exactly what it was? It was a witch hunt. It was a relic of McCarthyism that the Democrats dusted off to interfere with the lawful operation of the Executive Branch of our federal government under President Trump.

Actual Crimes for which Mueller Indicted Anyone Connected to President Trump

Mueller documented nothing that rose to the level of an indictable crime that lead to an indictment for anything related to President Trump's election campaign. All the people charged with crimes were charged with process crimes, saying they met with someone on a Tuesday when it was actually a Wednesday or tax evasion from years before the election campaign or lying to banks years before the election campaign.

Why wasn't former President Obama's Fed Chair also charged with tax evasion? Could it be a massive double-standard?

No, not possible. Democrats are never charged with the crimes they blatantly commit in full view of the public. They organize distraction campaigns, and this entire Russian collusion investigation was the mother of all distraction campaigns.

Further Investigations

As I write this, AG Barr, which you accused of having some ulterior motive for doing the very thing that you called for more of in the sentence prior to your impugnment of his character, is actively investigating the criminal activities that took place at the CIA and FBI that lead to this witch hunt which also failed to find a witch.

Since the Mueller investigation of President Trump and President Trump's election campaign was allowed to proceed after it was crystal clear that it was always a "big politically-motivated lie" (before Mueller's investigation even started, according to the FBI's own former counter-intelligence investigator, Peter Strzok- someone who was a "never Trumper"), then someone like you should be pleased that AG Barr has appointed a special counsel to find out when, exactly, it was that Mueller knew and when he knew it.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

TDS is a real mental disorder, but you can't convince anyone suffering from TDS that they are in need of treatment. When personal political opinions and beliefs are substituted wholesale for tangible evidence that meets our requirements for use in legal proceedings, that's when you know you have a problem. I didn't much care for former President Obama, but you did not see me posting non-stop utter nonsense conspiracy theories and political opinions related to the crimes committed by his lackeys. I made note of them and then brought them up when this nonsense was brought up. I've yet to receive a satisfactory response from anyone here about that.

Maybe some of you can't just accept that the Trump administration is a repudiation, in true American fashion, of the lawlessness of the Obama administration. Maybe your fellow Democrats could find and vote for a Democrat candidate who doesn't try so hard to turn America into something it never was. Then again, that's expecting reasonability from people who are generally not beholden to reason.

In time, President Trump will no longer be President. However, the American electorate will remember the weaponization of our intelligence and judicial systems for the express purpose of committing a coup against a sitting President that they elected to office.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-01 13:17:01

Indicting a sitting president can not happen so says the current law, so no indictments can be made even if there are any to be had, so the report just lists them so that congress can do there job and that is the indictment... Its this party control issue that must be shown how egredous the events were for them to not stick with party to be able to oust what is an impeachable president.

GW Johnson · 2019-06-01 13:37:57

Kbd512:

Your "impeachment" argument extremizes what the Constitution says, into a false comparison that the president serves either at the pleasure of the electorate or at the pleasure of Congress. That is just the kind of crap I hear coming out of right-wing echo chambers. That stuff is just as deplorable to me as is the left-wing crap that you (and I, too) deplore.

The only "school of thought" that matters is what the Constitution actually says. Period. So sayeth the Supreme Court, for a couple of centuries now.

It essentially says the impeachment process may be used whenever the president egregiously breaches the public trust. The specific words in the document include terms like "bribery", "high crimes", and by context "high misdemeanors", which last by the dictionary are attitudes and operating behaviors, not actual criminal acts. It is the word "high" that implies the misbehaviors must be rather egregious to warrant impeachment.

I don't need a lawyer or any other expert to read the Constitution for myself, and to understand what it means. It is written in plain, if dated, English, for all to read and understand. THAT is its very purpose, for crying out loud! “Schools of thought” be damned, and deservedly so!

The implication is that impeachment is warranted by egregiously breaching the public trust, or in other words, egregiously intolerable behavior. The decision is up to Congress as the document is written, and the implication is that the electorate will hold them accountable if they abuse that process (or anything else). That's what the balance of powers is all about.

The impeachment process is set up to be fair despite being inherently political, which political character is why the courts are explicitly left out of the impeachment process description. There is the analog to an indictment: the "articles of impeachment" from the House. There is the analog to a courtroom trial: a trial in the Senate by the senators themselves as jury, where the evidence can be heard, and the accused can defend himself. The Framers did specify that the Senate be presided-over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not the VP, for this process. That was to keep the politics tamped down enough to get a fairer process.

Your "no campaign finance indictments" argument is false on the face of it. In US law, it is illegal for foreigners to contribute to US campaigns, whether in cash or in kind! Mueller documented intent on the part of the Trump Campaign to accept political aid from the Russians (Clinton's stolen emails), pretty much in return for reduced sanctions. That's not just an illegal campaign contribution of the "in kind" type, it verges on bribery, not being so only because it preceded the election, and because actions of Congress after Trump took office prevented sanctions reduction (they actually increased sanctions).

And Cohen is in prison not just for lying, but for lying about a hush money issue that is itself a campaign finance violation, as well. Two counts of it.

It only takes one counterexample, and I just gave you two. There’s more, if you actually read the Mueller Report.

Your "obstruction of justice" argument reads like something off the Q Anon sites, not like anything I read in the Mueller Report. I have no doubt there were some bad actors like Strouck et al, there always are. But they do not dominate, not at DOJ, or FBI. They never have. It is unlikely they ever will.

Barr may well be right investigating how the original FBI counter-intelligence investigation got started, and how it led to the Mueller investigation. I sincerely hope he does a good job at that (he’s certainly capable). But nothing about that detracts from what Mueller already documented.

I did not accuse Barr of having some great evil ulterior motive, as you claim. He just has a long history of supporting the notion of an imperial presidency, and his summary shows that slant. That opinion is not as extreme as you seem to think, it's just a criticism of mine (and many others).

Slanted summary in favor of protecting the president. No surprises there. When has such stuff ever been different? Everybody that's been in the news talking about this has their own slant, and they all show. The truth (as always) lies somewhere between the extremes, not with either extreme. That’s why you MUST hear from more than one source to understand what is true and what is not.

“Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a phrase I only hear coming from far-right echo chambers and extremists like the Q Anon conspiracy nuts. No one else uses that term! That ought to tell you something about where you have been getting your beliefs, and what you might want to do about that.

And don't claim that I'm a leftist just because I disbelieve the right-wing crap. The left-wing "impeach right now" crap coming from those extremists, is just as distasteful to me. As I already said, there is a well-warranted investigation process yet to complete with Trump. And more investigations besides, of many others on both sides of the political spectrum.

I take issue with your notion of a totally "lawless Obama Administration". That's also a far-right / Q Anon phrase and idea. No one else uses that phrase or that claim.

All presidents do both good and bad. What you want is one who does more good than bad. It’s just that simple, and it is really, really hard to do.

Obama has many things to answer for, yes. So did Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan. Need I go on? They ALL do both good and bad, even Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, et al. And that includes Obama (it'll be some years yet before we collectively come to a conclusion on how much good vs how much bad he did).

If Obama was “lawless” for issuing so many executive orders, then so is Trump. You cannot have it both ways, Kbd512.

What I hope (and wish) you would notice about me is that I do not subscribe to the notion that (1) "all Republicans are good, while all Democrats are bad" (something you have repeatedly preached), nor do I subscribe to (2) "all Democrats are good, while all Republicans are bad" (something you accuse me of, simply because I do not subscribe to your views).

It ain’t “either/or”, much as you would like it to be. There is a vast middle ground. That’s where I am.

Both (1) and (2) just above are extremist ideas, and it is extremism that I despise, whether in politics, or religion, or anything else.

I do not know how to communicate that any clearer.

GW

kbd512 · 2019-06-01 13:40:50

SpaceNut,

Once again, the current interpretation of the law you reference has never been put before a trier of fact in a court of law. Judges and juries interpret the limitations of the law and how it applies, not the Legislature nor the Executive.

If investigations of political opponents are so great, then that applies equally to members of both political parties and you should applaud AG Barr's efforts to determine who foisted this Russian collusion hoax on the American people.

Why can't you just admit that Democrats only care about the law if it works in their favor?

Whenever the law doesn't work in the partisan manner that Democrats think it should, they accuse others of committing the crimes that Democrats committed.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-01 15:42:14

Here is some of that echo chamber obama brennan clinton collude coup of Trump....

kbd512 · 2019-06-01 16:14:42

GW,

Honesty in Political Opinions

Why don't you just admit that you don't like President Trump for your own personal reasons, whereupon you won't even receive a response from me?

Despite all the blatantly obvious falsehoods perpetrated in your posts here, I'll respond one last time for sake of addressing what you claim without evidence.

For starters, I never claimed that all Republicans are good. You came to that conclusion on your own based upon something I never stated or even implied. Basically, you made that up in your head and substituted your beliefs for something I never stated. I did claim that I'm a political partisan, yet you're pretending to be a neutral party. You're clearly a political partisan as well, but you still haven't recognized that simple truth. We all are, whether we admit it or not. The only people who don't have political opinions just don't care about the results of politics.

Impeachment

Regarding what "school of thought" actually matters here, that would be the school of thought of the people making legal and legislative decisions. Your interpretations carry every bit as much weight as mine, which is another way of saying none at all.

Speaking of extremism, if Republicans control the Congress and the Senate, should they impeach every Democrat President they don't like for their own petty political reasons?

If POTUS is beholden to Congress for petty political reasons, then the systemic corruption and failure to do anything of utility for the American people will continue unabated. That's pretty much what we have right now. Maybe you're just in favor of the status quo, and President Trump is definitely not maintaining the status quo, in that regard.

If you think a 100% Democrat controlled Congress and Executive will ever lead to anything but the swift demise of the American experiment in self-governance, then you're only fooling yourself. They haven't done anything useful for this country in decades, which is exactly why I won't vote for them until they start putting forth candidates whose only solution to every problem is more government.

If we start impeaching Presidents because opposing or even their own political parties don't like the President for their own petty political reasons, where do you suppose that madness will end?

Will of the people be damned, Congress gets to toss out any President who they don't like... Sure, I'll buy that. Not!

If you were here advocating for the impeachment for a Democrat President you didn't like, for your own petty political reasons, then I'd be making the exact same arguments. If Hillary Clinton was President and you came here with this sort of tripe, my opinions on this matter won't change. Whereupon we have to start voting out members of Congress for usurping our authority to elect who we wish to represent us, that will be a very bad day for America. I don't need to jump off a cliff to know that gravity is still in full effect, either.

Obstruction of Justice

Mueller didn't indict for obstruction of justice because he had no case. If Mueller thought he had a case to make, then he should've made it before a federal judge. You spouting off your personal beliefs about something his people didn't indict over that was merely written in their report has no bearing on a crime, which requires at least enough tangible evidence to indict. Whatever evidence he thought he had, he also thought was so weak that he didn't even try to indict.

Who or what is "Q Anon"? Is that someone or something that I'm supposed to know about?

On that note, who is "Strouck"? Was he someone I should know about?

It's pretty funny listening to you call someone else a conspiracy nut after you laid out so many conspiracies that Mueller's Report never found sufficient credible evidence to even bring an indictment over. Thanks, though. I needed a good laugh to take my mind off the fact that half the people in this country have lost their ever-loving minds over the election of one damn person. It's good (and by "good", I actually mean "bad") to know that one damn person can so easily distract an actual rocket scientist from useful work.

I don't care about whether or not bad actors dominate some agency. I care about what individuals do with the power and authority entrusted to them. Maybe you should slow your roll on your collectivist thought patterns just long enough to figure out that a single bad apple can ruin the whole bunch. You certainly apply my own thought pattern to your thinking about President Trump, though without legal evidence for your opinions, so maybe you could show just a little consistency and apply it to the rest of our government as well.

Campaign Finance Law Violations

Name off a single campaign finance law indictment brought forth by Mueller or the FBI against anyone involved in President Trump's 2016 Presidential election campaign. I already know you can't, else you already would've done so.

If your assertions about campaign finance are true, then Hillary Clinton would also be in jail. She also received millions of dollars from foreign donors. Like so many of your assertions, they have no bearing on what the applicable laws actually state.

Arguments Pertaining to Legal Authority

My arguments about the law are based upon legal decisions from the courts, not personal beliefs, except where I explicitly stated that I was stating my own personal opinion. My views are in no way extremist, except according to your opinions. You seem to think the law works how you think it should work, rather than how it actually works. Run for the Legislature if you want to make laws or become a Judge if you want to interpret laws.

I can say, without reservation, that after reading what you've written here, you're one of the very last people I'd ever call for legal advice. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, though. It just blows my mind how someone so intelligent can substitute their own belief system, lock, stock and barrel, for anything that has any legal basis. You were dead-on correct when you said that experts should stick to what they know, but now I know that even experts can't and don't follow their own advice.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-01 23:31:53

Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report; We have a system in place for our government to uncover evidence against a sitting president. And it’s working.

The attorney general was misleading through and through, not just about the investigation, but about the special counsel regulations themselves. The whole idea behind the notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is that the responsibility lies in Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House needs to ensure their case to impeach President Trump is "ironclad" -- as she was grilled on why the process hasn't started yet. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders on Wednesday tried to tamp down the brewing fervor among rank-and-file lawmakers to move more aggressively toward trying to impeach … In a move that is sure to disappoint a #Resistance crowd that has been waiting impatiently—and with high expectations—for the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table, at least for now.

kbd512 · 2019-06-02 01:15:03

SpaceNut,

If you think you're going to get dramatically different testimony out of Mueller, then convince him to testify before Congress.

Where is all the rancor from the Democrats to get Mueller to testify before Congress? Could it be that there's no there there?

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's lawyer, said "I dare Mueller to testify before Congress." Those were his exact words. If Democrat political hacks think Barr was being evasive, then let's get Mueller to testify. The witch hunt is already over with, but apparently some of the Democrat politicriminals in Congress didn't get the memo.

Is there any way that someone who thinks Mueller found evidence of something could possibly be against having him testify?

I promise you won't like the result, but I look forward to Mueller's testimony. It's almost as if the Democrats are incapable of accepting the fact that the American people told them to go pound sand. I do wonder what manner of electoral defeat is required for them to ponder on their arrogance.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-02 08:48:20

White House Lawyer Emmet Flood Expected to Leave Post

White House lawyer Emmet Flood sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr on April 19 accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of playing politics with his claim that the report "does not exonerate" President Trump on obstruction of justice. In the five-page April 19 letter obtained by CBS News, White House lawyer Emmet Flood suggested Mueller did a disservice to the president by failing to come to a conclusion on obstruction of justice. Considering Flood’s expertise and the timing, suffice it to say that something suspicious is afoot.

GW Johnson · 2019-06-02 11:22:23

These political arguments do get a bit heated, don't they? I suppose this is the place for it.

Just remember, while we may disagree on the politics, we are all still friends. Sometimes, you just have to agree to disagree.

GW

SpaceNut · 2019-06-02 16:30:56

I will agree with you 100% GW as we are talking about something that is difficult and we are doing it without the flaming which has gotten others bounced from the forum.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-04 20:03:33

He's back
AACmTIS.img?h=600&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

He's not

With the supeona's being Trumped
The White House has directed former staffers Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson to defy a congressional subpoena for documents related to their time in President Donald Trump's administration.

It may be a collective document of contempt for all those ignoring a supeona to which they should be charged,....

SpaceNut · 2019-06-06 19:47:52

About time The House will vote next week to hold Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress for defying congressional subpoenas

SpaceNut · 2019-06-07 17:13:56

Trump has been using his man in one Barr to shield, obstruct and to say he is above the law while weaponizing the DOJ so tit for tat now the House Dems to supercharge legal battle against Trump admin with new powers for committee chairs

This is more about the subpoena and the power to enforce thoses since others have been told to ignore the law....

With more than a cover up On voicemail, Trump's lawyer asks Michael Flynn's attorney for a 'heads up'
in the question as to what are you trying to hide...

SpaceNut · 2019-06-09 15:58:06

After voicing the words from Hillary Clinton: Mueller report proves obstruction of justice will it matter for Democrats and republicans that feel there has been a wrong....

Failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed Saturday that one “cannot read” special counsel Robert Mueller’s report without concluding that President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.

There is nothing normal about undermining the rule of law.
There is nothing normal about attacking the press.
There is nothing normal about trying to undermine another branch of government.
There is nothing normal about thinking that any of these should go unpunished.

kbd512 · 2019-06-09 22:04:58

SpaceNut,

You should really speak to your fellow Democrats about undermining the rule of law. Former President Obama's administration, along with former President Nixon's administration, were the poster children from the Executive for undermining rule of law.

The law says you don't get to make false criminal accusations against people you don't personally like, for political or any other purposes. The entire "Russian collusion" hoax was a blatant example of criminal misconduct initiated by Democrats, or communists masquerading as Democrats, appointed to positions within our CIA and FBI by former President Obama's administration. Stop running interference for those criminals, just because you agree with some part of their political ideology.

Obstructing someone who is breaking the law is not a crime, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, so long as our citizens don't abide criminal behavior from their politicians. Justice is not about you getting your way, with respect to politics. In a just world, the people who perpetrated the false "Russian collusion" narrative would be sitting behind bars. Luckily or unluckily, for all of us- dependent upon perspective, we don't live in a just world, never have, and likely never will.

Most other liberals I know constantly attack Fox News, people who watch Fox News, etc. It's quite obvious that liberals often don't believe what they say, they just think everyone should think as they do, and woe to thee who does not. As previously stated, I think all political partisans are lying about certain things, but since I often lack the resources to determine what they're lying about, I choose not to watch any of them spew their ideology at me, 24/7/365. There are far too many personal attacks against conservatives to even begin to count. It's hilarious and exquisitely hypocritical that regressive ideologues and regressive infotainment groups shouldn't also be rebutted when they lie their rear ends off so often and wildly mis-represent anything and everything they can for their own personal political gain. Only people who are ideologically-motivated would believe otherwise.

Congress, certain members of SCOTUS and other circuit federal judges, certain members of our intelligence and law enforcement apparatus, and even former President Obama's administration were trying to undermine President Trump since before he was sworn into office. The absurdity that turnabout isn't fair play, is once again, simultaneously hilarious and hypocritical. They have an unfettered belief that their own ideation must be correct, that all contrary opinions must be incorrect, and they're going to prove it by wasting no opportunity to undermine the office of the Executive because they personally dislike the person presently holding the office, for their own personal reasons.

The aforementioned is something that people who aren't blinded by their beliefs won't be amenable to. I was not constantly posting on this forum to spread discontent by second-guessing each and every decision that former President Obama made while he was running our country, despite the fact that I often disagreed with his decisions, because I have a little more faith in the person who holds that office than you or GW apparently do. The amount of disrespect, if not outright disloyalty and/or criminality, shown to the current President is stunning. I didn't demand someone who was 100% aligned with my personal political beliefs to simultaneously believe that the person who was eventually elected was suitable for the job. Ultimately, the spectacle I've witnessed here and nearly everywhere else that people claiming to be "liberal" by ideology are neither liberal, nor accepting of others who don't share their own ideology, nor respectful over those political differences, nor particularly in agreement with the rule of law if it doesn't suit their political beliefs.

AG Barr has been incessantly attacked by Democrats for both conveying what was in Mueller's report and investigating the people who perpetrated this massive fraud against the United States, at tax payer expense. All evidence I've seen indicates that Democrats are only tangentially interested in the rule of law if it benefits their election to political office. After that, they could care less about the law. Lest anyone think that I believe the Republicans are substantially different in that regard, most of them seem equally disinterested in rule of law after election to political office.

I can't believe a Republican has to tell Democrats how to connect with the American people, but apparently they've forgotten after straying so far from our traditional American values, so here's how Democrats can win elections again:

1. Stop lying to the American people, even when the people don't want to hear the ugly truth.

When even a Democrat politician stands up and tells his or her fellow Americans that socialism is not the answer, he or she is speaking plain unvarnished truth. When that politician is booed off the stage, we have a profound educational problem. We don't need anyone who subscribes to communist ideology teaching our kids how to fart, much less how to think about the proper way to run a country. Humanity has tried every form of socialism and communism we know of. It's always a miserable failure, each and every time it's ever tried, no exceptions in all of human history. Any who claims otherwise is a liar, full stop.

2. Stop accusing other political parties of doing exactly what their own political party is doing.

You don't get to make false accusations against someone you don't like, for your own personal reasons, and then insist that another crime was committed when the person being accused publicly points out the absurdity of it all. There is nothing at all amenable with that position and the rule of law.

3. Stop promising "mana from heaven" for every aspect of life, using other peoples' money. You are not entitled to what other people have, simply because they have it and you don't. Your neighbor's wallet is not your property. Much like your neighbor, our government's job is not to provide every stupid little thing you think you should have. You are entitled to what you work for, PERIOD!

If you want a college education, then you can damn well work your rear end off for it like so many of us actually did. I didn't get a student loan, mommy and daddy never gave me a nickel- and I'm so glad they never did, I went to public schools for almost the entire time I was in school (everything after 4th grade), and I didn't even use the GI bill that I paid into for 6 years in the Navy. I didn't need to. I used my brain, my hands, and the work ethic that my parents gave me by their own good example. I worked a full time job the entire time I was in college. All of my college tuition and books were paid for by my own work ethic, rather than other peoples' money. I'm the only child in my family that my parents aren't still "paying for" (student loans, housing, cars, etc). My wife did the exact same thing, in almost the exact same way. She came to this country when she was 12, from communist Viet Nam, didn't speak a word of English, and raised a child from the time she was 14. If you were born here like I was, what's your excuse? Don't tell me you think you're special, because you're not.

Both of my parents did the same thing and so did almost all of their brothers and sisters. Stop whining and complaining that it's hard to do. Anything worth doing will be an uphill battle all the way to the objective. Even after you reach the objective, you'd better have a good game plan for the next battle if you intend to win the war. By any objective standard, the current generation is the most well off of any generation in American history. Be grateful that we, the American tax payers, think so much of you kids out there.

Government can not, will not, and will never solve all of your personal problems. If anyone from government approaches you and promises to do all of that, then you can be pretty sure that you won't like the solution at all- unless your idea of what a good solution looks like involves everyone being equally poor and stupid. Equality of opportunity is quite noble. Equality of outcome is inherently stupid and evil.

If you want education, then earn it. Prove you're worthy of the investment that so many others are making in time and money. Show the world that you have what it takes. You're not going to solve the world's problems if you can't clean your own room or show up to work. Stop complaining about what you don't have. Stop second-guessing yourself and others. There are literally billions of other people on this planet who will never live to earn what was freely given to you. You're the luckiest son, or daughter, of a gun alive, whether you know it or not.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?

Pfft! We'll give you the boots and the straps. Get your rear end out of bed in the morning, put your boots on that were provided to you at tax payer expense, and go to work and do something that someone else thinks is useful, no matter your own personal opinion about it. Gain some practical experience actually doing something before applying your whole 8 hours of simulator time to it. This life is not a sim and there is no reset button if you make a mistake.

4. If you don't believe that the Republicans have reasonable policies, then present reasonable alternatives.

This topic would be worthy of its own book, but lately there has been absolutely nothing coming from the Democrats that in any way represents reasonably good policy, or any policy at all in most cases. I hate President Trump is an action, not a policy. Spending money is an action, not a policy. Virtue signaling is an action, not a policy. Incidentally, nearly all virtue signalers typically signal to everyone else that they have no virtue. People who are virtuous simply live out their beliefs and do not draw attention to themselves for self-aggrandizement.

Can we get something approximating a constructive alternative viewpoint that doesn't amount to destroying the existing system or simply spewing hatred and contempt for half the people in the country?

5. Finally, show love and compassion for your fellow Americans, and solidarity with them, no matter their political beliefs. Whether you believe it or not, they're the best friends you've ever had, or ever will have.

The hatred and contempt that liberals have shown for conservatives is so obvious that it's impossible to miss. This is not a good way to treat your fellow Americans.

Terraformer · 2019-06-10 03:49:04

There is nothing normal about trying to undermine another branch of government.

What if you use your pen and your phone to do it?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2019-05-27 12:55:27

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#27 2019-05-29 21:05:14

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#28 2019-05-31 08:33:54

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#29 2019-05-31 17:43:32

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#30 2019-05-31 20:15:00

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#31 2019-05-31 20:50:22

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#32 2019-05-31 21:21:42

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#33 2019-06-01 09:26:35

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#34 2019-06-01 12:03:13

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#35 2019-06-01 13:17:01

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#36 2019-06-01 13:37:57

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#37 2019-06-01 13:40:50

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#38 2019-06-01 15:42:14

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#39 2019-06-01 16:14:42

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#40 2019-06-01 23:31:53

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#41 2019-06-02 01:15:03

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#42 2019-06-02 08:48:20

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#43 2019-06-02 11:22:23

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#44 2019-06-02 16:30:56

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#45 2019-06-04 20:03:33

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#46 2019-06-06 19:47:52

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#47 2019-06-07 17:13:56

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#48 2019-06-09 15:58:06

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#49 2019-06-09 22:04:58

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

#50 2019-06-10 03:49:04

Re: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,

Board footer