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

[REDSTATEWARD]

Paulie K, telling it like it is:

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

Because the modern G.O.P. is perfectly willing to sell out America if that’s what it takes to get tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans may not think of it in those terms, but that’s what their behavior amounts to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/trump-republican-party.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Mueller and Rosenstein could not make cases for collusion or obstruction

Talk about a misrepresentation of what Mueller did.

The case for obstruction was made and referred to Congress to do something about it or not - a political process, as you damned well know.

Congress can always " do something" as per the Constitution.It has its own investigative powers and the power to impeach. 

Mueller could not indict a sitting president in his opinion - which is why he did not refer the case to the Attorney General.

He left that decision to the Attorney General. Barr conferred with Rod Rosenstein and concluded there was no obstruction.
It is interesting to not that senior leadership of the dems, based on the Mueller Report, find no impeachable charge but want more work by the House investigative committees.

Yes, Congress can do something. Yes, it has its own investigative powers.

Like requesting the President's tax returns from the IRS. Good point, Ward. How clever of you to figure it out.

However, Congress doesn't have grand jury power nor does have as ready a means to appoint a special counsel, currently.

And no, Mueller did not leave it to the Attorney General, LIAR!

it is the only office he could leave it to since he was appointed and supervised by Rosenstein who now reports to the Attorney General.

Dense.

No, Ward, it is the only office he could submit it to. He left the follow-up task to Congress and he explained why to anybody not intent on misunderstanding.

That is, there was no way for him to prevent you from inventing bullshit.

Mueller worked for the executive branch not  Congress. ( see Separation of Powers)
This seems to be hard for you to understand.

 

That you think that is relevant is hard for me to understand.

It has zero significance to what Mueller wrote. He did not say anything to the AG about what the AG should or should not do. He did not call upon the AG to decide if there was obstruction of justice.

And it is fascinating to me that this minutia is how you are choosing to focus your limited energies, rather than discussing what Mueller did] write:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

The PRESIDENT engaged in CORRUPT EXERCISE of the POWERS of OFFICE and you want to debate with nobody to whom Mueller reported. Nobody is debating who hired Mueller, to whom Mueller was reporting, or anything of that sort.

You are being told repeatedly the truth: Mueller left it to Congress to determine how to respond to THE PRESIDENT's CORRUPT EXERCISE OF POWERS OF OFFICE.

He did not leave any doubt that the president did corrupt things, abusing his power.

TRUMP is CORRUPT, according to Mueller.

Mueller and I agree along with the Constitution: Congress has the power to remove the President. Whatever Mueller said in his report about Congress doesnt  change that.
So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

Mueller wrote:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

You just keep on ignoring the flat statement about presidential corruption. Kind of like how you ignored the abuse of children.

And the reason we do not yet have impeachment hearings is because the GOP has thus far made it clear that they are no more interested in exploring Trump's corruption than you are.

They and you are amoral hypocrites.

No news there.

I don’t think you even know what your point is, if any

[facilitatorn]

Red thinks his beloved abuser is getting away with it.

[josh]

Paulie K, telling it like it is:

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

Because the modern G.O.P. is perfectly willing to sell out America if that’s what it takes to get tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans may not think of it in those terms, but that’s what their behavior amounts to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/trump-republican-party.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Mueller and Rosenstein could not make cases for collusion or obstruction

Talk about a misrepresentation of what Mueller did.

The case for obstruction was made and referred to Congress to do something about it or not - a political process, as you damned well know.

Congress can always " do something" as per the Constitution.It has its own investigative powers and the power to impeach. 

Mueller could not indict a sitting president in his opinion - which is why he did not refer the case to the Attorney General.

He left that decision to the Attorney General. Barr conferred with Rod Rosenstein and concluded there was no obstruction.
It is interesting to not that senior leadership of the dems, based on the Mueller Report, find no impeachable charge but want more work by the House investigative committees.

Yes, Congress can do something. Yes, it has its own investigative powers.

Like requesting the President's tax returns from the IRS. Good point, Ward. How clever of you to figure it out.

However, Congress doesn't have grand jury power nor does have as ready a means to appoint a special counsel, currently.

And no, Mueller did not leave it to the Attorney General, LIAR!

it is the only office he could leave it to since he was appointed and supervised by Rosenstein who now reports to the Attorney General.

Dense.

No, Ward, it is the only office he could submit it to. He left the follow-up task to Congress and he explained why to anybody not intent on misunderstanding.

That is, there was no way for him to prevent you from inventing bullshit.

Mueller worked for the executive branch not  Congress. ( see Separation of Powers)
This seems to be hard for you to understand.

 

That you think that is relevant is hard for me to understand.

It has zero significance to what Mueller wrote. He did not say anything to the AG about what the AG should or should not do. He did not call upon the AG to decide if there was obstruction of justice.

And it is fascinating to me that this minutia is how you are choosing to focus your limited energies, rather than discussing what Mueller did] write:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

The PRESIDENT engaged in CORRUPT EXERCISE of the POWERS of OFFICE and you want to debate with nobody to whom Mueller reported. Nobody is debating who hired Mueller, to whom Mueller was reporting, or anything of that sort.

You are being told repeatedly the truth: Mueller left it to Congress to determine how to respond to THE PRESIDENT's CORRUPT EXERCISE OF POWERS OF OFFICE.

He did not leave any doubt that the president did corrupt things, abusing his power.

TRUMP is CORRUPT, according to Mueller.

Mueller and I agree along with the Constitution: Congress has the power to remove the President. Whatever Mueller said in his report about Congress doesnt  change that.
So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

Mueller wrote:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

You just keep on ignoring the flat statement about presidential corruption. Kind of like how you ignored the abuse of children.

And the reason we do not yet have impeachment hearings is because the GOP has thus far made it clear that they are no more interested in exploring Trump's corruption than you are.

They and you are amoral hypocrites.

No news there.

I don’t think you even know what your point is, if any

MUELLER SAYS THE PRESIDENT IS CORRUPT.

Got it yet?!

[barton]

The ranter against the belief matrix is back! 

[NeedsAdjustments]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

They got their tax cuts (and a Supreme Court that will prove corrupt in its own way by looking for a way to accept the Admin's piss-poor argument on the census citizenship question.)

[NeedsAdjustments]

And for anyone who is interested (ie not several Trumpist posters here) some excellent and clear analysis on the Mueller obstruction question:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/politics/trump-mueller-obstruction.html

Both find at least four instances that qualify, with more possible that could come to light via Congressional investigation.

Note, Trump continues to obstruct by dangling a pardon before Manafort, the key piece of obstruction that likely made proving criminal cooperation with the Russians impossible.

[luee]

I was apparently temporarily banished to exile island for expressing the truth about liberal elite hypocrites and defending the "deplorable" blue collar ones. The lord of The  Elba can be both petty and yet in the long run open minded and forgiving.

[REDSTATEWARD]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

Impeachment has been the democrats’ obsession since November of 2016.
Now the party has the House.
What they don’t have is a case they can sell to voters.

[barton]

I was apparently temporarily banished to exile island for expressing the truth about liberal elite hypocrites and defending the "deplorable" blue collar ones. The lord of The  Elba can be both petty and yet in the long run open minded and forgiving.

No one banished you, o paranoid one.  If that were a thing here, Bambu/Arafurball would have been booted long ago.  Fortunately, liberals (of the non-elite kind) are passionate about free speech and open dialogue. 

[barton]

Impeachment has been the democrats’ obsession since November of 2016.

When a president is corrupt, racist, a threat to the Constitution, and dangerously immature and stupid, then impeachment is not an obsession but a constitutional duty.

 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Impeachment has been the democrats’ obsession since November of 2016.

When a president is corrupt, racist, a threat to the Constitution, and dangerously immature and stupid, then impeachment is not an obsession but a constitutional duty.

 

Oh.
So what is holding back Impeachment?

[kiidcarter8]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

They got their tax cuts (and a Supreme Court that will prove corrupt in its own way by looking for a way to accept the Admin's piss-poor argument on the census citizenship question.)

Republicans support the President's position on many issues.  It isn't all about conduct.

Democrats can try to oust a solid leader from his position.  It's their lawful right.  And a steep uphill climb, of course.

[kiidcarter8]

I was apparently temporarily banished to exile island for expressing the truth about liberal elite hypocrites and defending the "deplorable" blue collar ones. The lord of The  Elba can be both petty and yet in the long run open minded and forgiving.

Would love to see the post that got you banned.

[oilcan]

(reply to Red's last post - quote function is glitching FSR)

Politics, obviously.  Dems want to win in 2020 and push a positive agenda of progressive policy-crafting.  They are anxious that an impeachment trial (which would only result in censure, due to the Senate) would shift focus off that.  I would have agreed, before seeing the M report...and this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/russia-2020-election-trump.html

45 is essentially blocking cyberdefense of our democratic process.  That is blatant grounds for ejection from office.

[oilcan]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

They got their tax cuts (and a Supreme Court that will prove corrupt in its own way by looking for a way to accept the Admin's piss-poor argument on the census citizenship question.)

Republicans support the President's position on many issues.  It isn't all about conduct...

Then what's the problem with ousting the guy with corrupt and horrible conduct and replace with someone who's similar/same on issues?  If you're only sticking with him on issues, then why not a personnel chamge?  Same issue positions, better person?