Reply With Quote
for following the law
Even with all of this it seems like nothing will ever happen to him
for following the law
in today's world, if you named all of these offensive and harmful policy choices but did not name the person behind them, one would likely tell you how horrible these actions were. then, if you told them it was obama, they'd find some reason to justify the actions (the same would apply in a similar trumper scenario, of course).
oh, and just to add, obama also turned his back on president zelaya in honduras and did nothing to curb the harmful effects of CAFTA (leading to the mass exodus from the Northern Triangle that we see today), ordered sanctions on venezuela (helping to speed up its hyperinflation and debt), initiated the asian pivot (continuing the ongoing history of U.S. aggression towards N. Korea) and continued to allow the U.S. to lead NATO in its decades old encroachment on the Russian borders and violations of the agreements made between the end of the Cold War.
Pelosi says Trump is ‘becoming self-impeachable’
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Trump is “becoming self-impeachable,”
pointing to his efforts
to fight all subpoenas from congressional investigations and prevent key aides from testifying before Congress.
“The point is that every single day, whether
it’s obstruction, obstruction, obstruction —
obstruction of having people come to the table with facts, ignoring subpoenas . . .
every single day, the president is making a case —
he’s becoming self-impeachable,
in terms of some of the things that he is doing,”what terms, what things?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7f80cd945d1e
Feckless Pelosi waiting for Trash to impeach himself. (she speaks American gibberish usage)
Trash pardoned a convicted murderer, pandering to the hate-driven Christian who want Muslim killed.
Is that what the FFs meant when they gave the Pres unlimited pardon power?
Impeach Trash for that pardon alone, as yet again being not fit for the office.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-09-2019 at 12:58 AM.
This is exactly what I do not want. Next year's election needs to be about going after the robber barons jacking up the price of insulin, getting us addicted to and killing us off with opiates, and in general making our healthcare system the laughingstock of the developed world. It needs to be about the ridiculous wealth gap and how wages have stayed flat for the people over decades while the rich have reaped every reward of this nation's economy. But durr Trump is a piece of is exactly what the Democratic party wants the next election to be about. We'll get a "hang the criminal" sideshow because the American Tory party seems to love the way this nation has descended into an oligarchy just like the GOP does. If this election ends up being about impeachment and obstruction of justice better get ready for another four years of Trump, because voters on the left are going to see through it the same way they did when Clinton was the nominee and not show up in sufficient numbers to take the fascist president down.
stop making sense!!
"Next year's election needs to be about going after the robber barons jacking up the price of insulin,"
Dem can do that AFTER the election, but first
" The spectacle of a trial, (he means impeachment, not trial) with the House going over every single change, laboriously, methodically, will keep Trump on the back foot for the entire campaign."
.. is my preference.
Then let the Repugs in the Senate against conviction which will hurt them, too.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-09-2019 at 12:58 AM.
all good points.
the extent to which the GOP promulgates straight up white nationalism is striking; so is the other side's deadly serious insistence on incremental relief.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-08-2019 at 11:41 PM.
for the conflagration of leftist passion, the Democratic Party carries a large, wet blanket.
Joe Biden.
Dem establishment, eternally feckless, standing by, passively complicit, for decades as Repugs up America
I saw that. Every word was true.
Swallwell also destroyed the traitors in the GOP for supporting a "pathetic con man" -
it was a great speech also.
All good points -
if this was 20 years ago.
This is different. People are actually getting pissed at Democrats for being so fair - so nice - so weak -
that when they begin to put all of these crimes from this criminal traitor on display - the country will cheer the taking down of this piece of and there will actually be another "faux patriotism" surge just like after 9-11.
The Repukes in the Senate will sign their names to an acquittal at their own political peril and that vote will be their downfall and they will carry that stigma the rest of their political lives.
Americans want to see the traitors taken down and want to feel that someone in D.C. fought to preserve our democracy.
Dems will ride that wave to take over the 3 branches and then get healthcare for all - pretty much a nightmare for the right wing traitors.
At this point, I want random guy to get his dream and have Congress impeach Trump. There is still time for another sane Republican to challenge him in the primary. Let the Democrats destroy Trump and then run one of their whacko socialists against a republican moderate like Nicki Haley. Perfect storm.
"sane Republican"
nicki haley moderate, from ing SC?
Here Are Ten of the Real Reasons We Are In a ‘Cons utional Crisis’
the American experiment was set up with numerous failsafe mechanisms in place as way to prevent something like the situation we are currently in the process of facing from ever fully coming to fruition.
Here is a, surely incomplete, list of where and how that machinery failed thanks to what might be called a perfect storm of cir stances.
- No one possessing the lack of character of Donald Trump was ever intended to become a major party’s presidential nominee, and then also to have the benefit of running against someone as unpopular as Hillary Clinton, mostly because no one ever anticipated celebrity being by far the most important characteristic that a presidential candidate could ever possess.
- An adversarial foreign power was never supposed to be allowed to try to influence our presidential election on one candidate’s behalf, and if they did, surely that candidate would never accept their help and not even inform our intelligence agencies about what was happening. The prospect of that candidate actually winning, while not even getting the most votes, was surely never even contemplated.
- Our news media was never supposed to completely abdicate their responsibility to properly vet candidates because it wasn’t in their financial self-interest to do so. They also were never expected to have blown all their credibility with huge portions of the population because of years of extreme bias and the craven pursuit of ratings over substance, so that when they really needed to be trusted, none of the right people still took them seriously.
- It was never expected that an elected president could be so craven as to be willing to blow up the entire system to protect themselves from being held accountable for their own wrong doing.
- If such a presidency somehow transpired, it was assumed that members of their own party, if not out of principle, at least out of electoral survival, would not go blindly along with such a scam. It was not anticipated, however, that our electorate would be so polarized that not even one member of such a president’s party would have either the political incentive, or the courage, to seriously buck them.
- It was presumed that, if such a cir stance somehow transpired, the opposition party, riding a wave of public support via a negative reaction to such a development, would quickly take over congressional power as a firm check on such an out-of-control executive branch. However, it was never thought that “red” states and “blue” states would be so radically different that a party enduring the burden of such a presidency would actually pick up a couple of Senate seats, while maintaining control of that chamber.
- When our system was set up, it was not premised on the idea that the voting population would be very poorly educated regarding civics, have astonishingly tiny attention spans, and that the vast majority would never bother to read even one word of a report detailing serious possible crimes by the president.
- Nor was it anticipated that our sources of news would be so fragmented that every citizen would be able to instantly tailor the information they receive to conform almost exclusively to what it was they wanted to believe in the first place, easily blocking out any data which does not conform to those preconceived notions.
- It was never projected that when the party in opposition to this tyrannical president took over the House that, even if they all pretty much agreed that this person should be impeached, they would be extremely hesitant to do so because the other party was so entrenched that there no hope of any of them going along with it, no matter what the evidence is. It was also not accounted for that the party in charge of the House would be so willing to let the party protecting their president so easily off the hook by not even forcing them to publicly defend their anti-impeachment position.
- Finally, it was not accounted for that the final stopgap in a cir stance like this, the judiciary, would become so overtly politicized that even members of the Supreme Court would be routinely referred to as representing political parties. It was also probably never expected that the president in question would have appointed himself a majority on the court, with the likely deciding vote in any controversial matter coming from a justice whose entire career that president personally saved by backing him during an unprecedentedly contentious confirmation battle.
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/her...tional-crisis/
iow, America is ed and un able.
Thanks, oligarchy.
You own and operate and up the government and country for amassing more of your unchallengeable wealth.
Thanks man.
It won't work out the way you think it will, given the proven polling numbers of the scary socialist agenda. Polls show that once your conservative scaremongering about "socialism booga booga booga" is set aside, and people are asked what kinds of specific policies they like, they tend to vastly approve of them on an individual basis.
Whacko ideas like universal health insurance that every other industrialized country has tend to be pretty popular outside your groupthink elitist clique.
LOL... sane Republicans getting through modern Republican primaries.
You're cute. I do seem to remember I owe you a six pack of beer though (bet on interest rate hikes if memory serves). Be fun to go double or nuthin on a "sane" Republican.
FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.
FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.
FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.
https://ballotpedia.org/United_State...lections,_2018The Democratic Party won control of the U.S. House from the Republican Party on November 6, 2018. Democrats gained a net total of 40 seats, 17 more than the 23 seats they needed to win control of the House.
No, it will simply be the hardcore right conducting the kinds of terror attacks that more than one of them appear to be planning, ala MAGA bomber. One of them will be bound to be competant enough to pull off a fatality or two, even considering the lower IQ nature of his most fervent supporters.
FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
