Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[LarryBnDC]

[facilitatorn]

  This is about the hard democratic and Constitutional requirement that there be checks and balances.  We give up oversight of the Executive, then we declare any future President, Democrat or Republican, above those checks and balances.

It is also a Constitutional Requirement (separation of powers) that a President cannot be compelled to appear before Congress nor can his intimate advisors..  Conversations between the President and his staff are covered by executive privilege. Since  Don McGahn and Robert Mueller were both employees of the Justice Department whatever they discussed in the Russian Investigation is off limits to the Oversight Committees.And, besides, most  of what McGahn told Mueller is in Mueller's report.
If the democrats want to pursue Impeachment that's their call.  But McGahn has every legal right to ignore any subpoena and can't be held in contempt for refusing to appear.

The hardened criminals on trump’s staff can no longer afford attorneys or find any willing to work with them so Red is offering them free legal advice. It’s terrible legal advice, but he is offering it for free.

McGahn’s privilege was burnt once the White House let him testify. They were naively optimistic that once Mueller interviewed him, we’d be done with him. We’re not, and you can’t put the privilege back on the pig.

Executive privilege relates to conversations between a sitting president and those who give him advice. Wimpy donnie was too chickenshit to even speak to Mueller much less elicit advice. There is no executive privilege trump can exert over Mueller.

The next movement in this preamble to impeachment is the financial and business ties disclosures showing how thoroughly a puppet the flubby gasbag is.

[NeedsAdjustments]

  This is about the hard democratic and Constitutional requirement that there be checks and balances.  We give up oversight of the Executive, then we declare any future President, Democrat or Republican, above those checks and balances.

It is also a Constitutional Requirement (separation of powers) that a President cannot be compelled to appear before Congress nor can his intimate advisors..  Conversations between the President and his staff are covered by executive privilege. Since  Don McGahn and Robert Mueller were both employees of the Justice Department whatever they discussed in the Russian Investigation is off limits to the Oversight Committees.And, besides, most  of what McGahn told Mueller is in Mueller's report.
If the democrats want to pursue Impeachment that's their call.  But McGahn has every legal right to ignore any subpoena and can't be held in contempt for refusing to appear.

Funny, you were arguing a few weeks ago that Mueller was free to testify if he wanted to.

Trump can not invoke executive privilege over Mueller for testimony on a report that has already been made public.  Which is why he hasn't.  I don't know if he will try to invoke that privilege over McGahn.  I do know that Trump is threatening McGahn's law firm if he does testify, which I'm sure you think is totally above board, trash poster.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I'm not saying it should work, I'm saying it will work.  You've buttressed my point:  Trump already does a good job of portraying himself as a victim of wicked partisan witch hunters.   Americans are getting stupider and more gullible and more narrow in their knowledge, which is what the corporations who sell them stuff, especially electronic gadgets, want.  Trump knows how to be the loudest mouth in cyberspace, he knows how to manipulate in short bursts of message that fit the attention span of the average resident of the Digital Age, and we will soon have a dictatorship backed by oligarchs. 

So if the President is loud enough and active enough on twitter the Constitution can not apply to him...

I find that to be a problematic position. 

[kiidcarter8]

Meanwhile, the effluvium rising from the administration just gets thicker....

Washington (CNN) -- President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen had more than 1,000 contacts with a Russian-linked company, evidence that special counsel Robert Mueller used to quickly intensify his investigation, according to newly unsealed court records.
Mueller was appointed in 2017 to investigate Russian interference in US politics, and the new documents show how Cohen gave Mueller plenty of reasons to aggressively investigate him. That's because Cohen initiated many of his contacts with foreign companies immediately after the 2016 presidential election, and started taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign sources.
The special counsel obtained five search warrants before handing the Cohen investigation over to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Those warrants were unsealed Wednesday by a federal court in Washington, DC, after CNN and other media outlets sued to make the records public.
The details of Mueller's early work were disclosed as Trump and Attorney General William Barr set their sights on the origins of the Russia investigation. Barr has questioned the legitimacy of how the probe started, while Trump has called it an "illegal" and even "treasonous" endeavor.

But the documents describe how investigators were learning of new and concerning actions, tying Trump's closest associates to powerful Russian interests, even after Trump was elected....

And most citizens couldn't care less about all this.  Their minds are on healthcare, immigration, and affording to have a roof over their heads.  What they forget is that no matter how tasty the fruit looks, if it's dangling from a poison tree, it will be poisoned fruit.  Corrupt leaders tend to produce corrupt legislatures and courts and agencies.

And while the Trump craziness continues the Dems have to be out calling for, “Healthcare, fair wages and no babies in cages.”

OBAMA cages.

[REDSTATEWARD]

  This is about the hard democratic and Constitutional requirement that there be checks and balances.  We give up oversight of the Executive, then we declare any future President, Democrat or Republican, above those checks and balances.

It is also a Constitutional Requirement (separation of powers) that a President cannot be compelled to appear before Congress nor can his intimate advisors..  Conversations between the President and his staff are covered by executive privilege. Since  Don McGahn and Robert Mueller were both employees of the Justice Department whatever they discussed in the Russian Investigation is off limits to the Oversight Committees.And, besides, most  of what McGahn told Mueller is in Mueller's report.
If the democrats want to pursue Impeachment that's their call.  But McGahn has every legal right to ignore any subpoena and can't be held in contempt for refusing to appear.

Funny, you were arguing a few weeks ago that Mueller was free to testify if he wanted to.

What does that have to do with McGahn?

Trump can not invoke executive privilege over Mueller for testimony on a report that has already been made public.  Which is why he hasn't.

You make no sense.
 

I don't know if he will try to invoke that privilege over McGahn.  I do know that Trump is threatening McGahn's law firm if he does testify, which I'm sure you think is totally above board, trash poster.

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

[whiskeypriest]

  This is about the hard democratic and Constitutional requirement that there be checks and balances.  We give up oversight of the Executive, then we declare any future President, Democrat or Republican, above those checks and balances.

It is also a Constitutional Requirement (separation of powers) that a President cannot be compelled to appear before Congress nor can his intimate advisors..  Conversations between the President and his staff are covered by executive privilege. Since  Don McGahn and Robert Mueller were both employees of the Justice Department whatever they discussed in the Russian Investigation is off limits to the Oversight Committees.And, besides, most  of what McGahn told Mueller is in Mueller's report.
If the democrats want to pursue Impeachment that's their call.  But McGahn has every legal right to ignore any subpoena and can't be held in contempt for refusing to appear.

Funny, you were arguing a few weeks ago that Mueller was free to testify if he wanted to.

What does that have to do with McGahn?

Trump can not invoke executive privilege over Mueller for testimony on a report that has already been made public.  Which is why he hasn't.

You make no sense.
 

I don't know if he will try to invoke that privilege over McGahn.  I do know that Trump is threatening McGahn's law firm if he does testify, which I'm sure you think is totally above board, trash poster.

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

What hilarious nonsense.

[REDSTATEWARD]

  This is about the hard democratic and Constitutional requirement that there be checks and balances.  We give up oversight of the Executive, then we declare any future President, Democrat or Republican, above those checks and balances.

It is also a Constitutional Requirement (separation of powers) that a President cannot be compelled to appear before Congress nor can his intimate advisors..  Conversations between the President and his staff are covered by executive privilege. Since  Don McGahn and Robert Mueller were both employees of the Justice Department whatever they discussed in the Russian Investigation is off limits to the Oversight Committees.And, besides, most  of what McGahn told Mueller is in Mueller's report.
If the democrats want to pursue Impeachment that's their call.  But McGahn has every legal right to ignore any subpoena and can't be held in contempt for refusing to appear.

Funny, you were arguing a few weeks ago that Mueller was free to testify if he wanted to.

What does that have to do with McGahn?

Trump can not invoke executive privilege over Mueller for testimony on a report that has already been made public.  Which is why he hasn't.

You make no sense.
 

I don't know if he will try to invoke that privilege over McGahn.  I do know that Trump is threatening McGahn's law firm if he does testify, which I'm sure you think is totally above board, trash poster.

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

What hilarious nonsense.

Exactly.  Mueller gave Congress a chance to search for impeachable offenses.
Nadler and Company don't want to run that risk, apparently because it may fail.
But they don't want the end the controversy either.  But they look foolish with statements like
" our subpoenas are not optional."
They are, in fact, legally fruitless.

[Yankguy1]

Legally fruitless!!!!  In fact!!!!

[NeedsAdjustments]

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

Spinning wheels is pure projection on your part REDSTATEWARD, as executive privilege does not apply to either McGahn or Mueller (and has not been invoked by our "President" in either case) nor the numerous other avenues of investigation on which the White House has stonewalled.  And you need not have done more than pay a bit of attention to the news in the last few hours to know it:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/trump-financial-records-bank-house-subpoenas-hearing-new-york/index.html

[NeedsAdjustments]

Mueller gave Congress a chance to search for impeachable offenses.
Nadler and Company don't want to run that risk, apparently because it may fail.

The know it will fail in the Senate.

But they don't want the end the controversy either.

On what basis should the controversy end?  Mueller found evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice.  Theses are impeachable offenses.  14 law enforcement actions are ongoing, coming out of Mueller's investigation.  There is ongoing counter-intelligence action based on those Russian contacts that has not been made public. 

The controversy should end just because the partisans in the Senate are giving continuing lawlessness a pass?  Not how the Constitution works, trash poster.

[barton]

I'm not saying it should work, I'm saying it will work.  You've buttressed my point:  Trump already does a good job of portraying himself as a victim of wicked partisan witch hunters.   Americans are getting stupider and more gullible and more narrow in their knowledge, which is what the corporations who sell them stuff, especially electronic gadgets, want.  Trump knows how to be the loudest mouth in cyberspace, he knows how to manipulate in short bursts of message that fit the attention span of the average resident of the Digital Age, and we will soon have a dictatorship backed by oligarchs. 

So if the President is loud enough and active enough on twitter the Constitution can not apply to him...

I find that to be a problematic position.

Er, just checking....you read the rest of my post and got that I see this possibility as the fall of democracy and rise of totalitarianism, right?  I wasn't saying it was anything but problematic.  Catastrophic, really. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

Spinning wheels is pure projection on your part REDSTATEWARD, as executive privilege does not apply to either McGahn or Mueller (and has not been invoked by our "President" in either case) nor the numerous other avenues of investigation on which the White House has stonewalled.

What was stonewalled in the Mueller Report? Executive Privilege does not pertain to Mueller since he was not advising the President.  But it does to McGahn to the extent his testimony cannot be about matters Trump decides are private.   

[FlyingVProd]

We do not need any walls. We need to build relationships with our neighbors such that we can accomplish our mutual goals, such as preventing terrorism, and halting the flow of illegal drugs, etc. We need to work together as a team with Mexico, and with Canada, and we do not need any walls.

And we have accomplished a lot in Colombia, because of teamwork. Pastrana, Uribe, and Santos, were all great, and they all worked together with the USA, and the current President of Colombia, Iván Duque Márquez, attended Harvard University here in the USA.

We need to utilize teamwork, instead of building walls.

And we can better spend the money by putting in new water systems for people such as the people of Michigan, instead of building walls we can build nice, modern, safe, clean water systems for the people of Michigan and for others here in the USA who need safe water.

Also, if we want to lower crime, we can spend money on early childhood development programs, and on after school programs, and programs which teach music and theatre and the arts to the children. And of note is that we have made huge strides in Colombia by investing in schools, etc, strides could be made in Mexico by investing in schools there as well.

NO WALL!

Salute,

Tony V.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Mueller gave Congress a chance to search for impeachable offenses.
Nadler and Company don't want to run that risk, apparently because it may fail.

The know it will fail in the Senate.

But they don't want the end the controversy either.

On what basis should the controversy end?  Mueller found evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice.  Theses are impeachable offenses.  14 law enforcement actions are ongoing, coming out of Mueller's investigation.  There is ongoing counter-intelligence action based on those Russian contacts that has not been made public. 

The controversy should end just because the partisans in the Senate are giving continuing lawlessness a pass?  Not how the Constitution works, trash poster.

I had no opinion on whether the controversy should end.  My post dealt with Nadler and his fruitless  quest to force McGHahn to testify about matters not in the Mueller report.