The Right Wing had better be right about this "Deep State" stuff.

[mudwhistle]

Rosenstein appointed Mueller after recommending that Trump fire Comey......so he used the firing as justification to start an investigation into obstruction.
Mueller has a history. He was picked for a specific purpose. To create process crimes......not to investigate Russian Collusion.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller after recommending that Trump fire Comey......so he used the firing as justification to start an investigation into obstruction.

LOL...

Those crooked Dems are way ahead of you. They're so good that they somehow were able to get Trump to appoint "their man" as the deputy FBI director so he could " land the plane" on getting Mueller appointed.

Too funny.

Yep.....dishonesty is a trait you greatly admire....which is why you're a Democrat voter.

Ok....so, Trump appointed Rosenstein as deputy at the FBI but somehow Rosenstein was actually secretly working for the Dems?

You think I have a problem with honesty?

Too funny.

Yep.....Rosenstein stabbed Trump in the back.
Rosenstein was removed once Barr took over and now we finally have an even playing field.
Now somebody who believes in the rule of law can get to the bottom of all of this.....and I suspect Rosenstein is going to have some rough days ahead.

So you're admitting then that the Dems had nothing to do with the appointment of Mueller?

Now why in fuck would you assume that?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...

Those crooked Dems are way ahead of you. They're so good that they somehow were able to get Trump to appoint "their man" as the deputy FBI director so he could " land the plane" on getting Mueller appointed.

Too funny.

Yep.....dishonesty is a trait you greatly admire....which is why you're a Democrat voter.

Ok....so, Trump appointed Rosenstein as deputy at the FBI but somehow Rosenstein was actually secretly working for the Dems?

You think I have a problem with honesty?

Too funny.

Yep.....Rosenstein stabbed Trump in the back.
Rosenstein was removed once Barr took over and now we finally have an even playing field.
Now somebody who believes in the rule of law can get to the bottom of all of this.....and I suspect Rosenstein is going to have some rough days ahead.

So you're admitting then that the Dems had nothing to do with the appointment of Mueller?

Now why in fuck would you assume that?

LOL...

I just told you, dope.
Because Rosenstein was Trump's guy.

 

[AntonToo]

This right there is proof positive that Barr has failed you in his summary of the Mueller report.

Mueller DID NOT disagree that Trump has provably commited Obstruction.

What Mueller said was that according to DOJ policy he could not indict a sitting president and was therefore declining to make a prosecuratorial descision. Instead, he simply laid out the facts of the case based on which the Congress can hold a president accountable for abuses of his office.

Horseshit.
Mueller found no collusion.
Obstruction was pure speculation.
First you need a crime, then you need an illegal act.
None of this was satisfied.

You wrong again - Mueller specifically talks about Obstruction of Justice as a crime of it's own, commited at times over non-criminal underlying matters.

For example in Clinton's case there was no underlying crime - the sex was legal.

And lying under oath is a crime called perjury.

Thats a right, even though there was no underlying crime, the perjury was still chargable. And by the way, perjury is just a veriety of Obstruction.

Perjury is lying under oath.
Obstruction is destroying evidence, refusing to cooperate in an investigation, and preventing investigators from interviewing witnesses. None of this happened.

Idiot, that’s not the full definition of Obstruction of Justice.

I already told you what you missed, go back and read the part about trying to corruptly interfere in the justice process and influencing an officer of the law.

 

[AntonToo]

Against a citizen who was no longer with the Trump campaign. In fact, according to the trump campaign at the time, they fired Page.

So tell the forum again how that means Obama spied on trump.

Relax, faun.

Our President and his Wing Man have the documents and have declassified them. We are getting ready for the Big Reveal.

It will be crystal clear exactly what Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, etc., all did and when they did it pretty soon in regards to the FISA warrants against loyal American citizen Carter Page and others.

Right now, Trump is just building this up. Just like before Wrestlemania 23 which was also pre-planned.

Nothing that is in the previously classified documents is new to Donald J Trump or William Barr, at least not now.

You can say, now, that the President is just "talking shit". But I don't think so, as we will all seen one way or another in not very much time. Right now, Trump is trying to make the coupsters sweat a little bit too, as well as build up the suspense.

What big reveal? The FISA applications have already been released and proved to be legitimate.

So what else ya got?

Really? So the general public knows the reason and the predication for the Obama Regime to spy on his political opponents? Do you care to link the documents and the sources that were used to obtain the FISA warrants?

It's not actually been confirmed that Obama spied on his political opponents. That's still under investigation which began more than a year ago. Don't you think it would be prudent to wait for the results rather than to leap to conclusions?

As far as the FISA warrant applications, this is old news. Old news that led to no big reveal....

Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application

... so again I ask.... what big reveal are you expecting? What else ya got?

Obviously it's not your birth we are expecting. That would be a cause of mourning here for many on USMB.

But you are pregnant with Putin's Love Child. So maybe it's you that is expecting to give birth to Russian Collusion.

Spying has been confirmed. And it has been confirmed in numerous ways. BY THE AG. It will be confirmed again by the IG, and then again by The DOJ Attorney assigned to investigating The COUP and Illegal Spying on a Presidential Candidate, and Ultimately ORDERED BY Obama Bin Lying.

Why do we know about The Trump Tower Meeting with FBI Spy and Fusion GPS Employee Natalia V?

How do we know out Private Conversations with The President and World Leaders?

How do we know about legit phone calls between Flynn and a Russian Diplomat arranged by Obama?

How do we know about phone calls Don Jr, made that again turned out to be totally legit.

You have to spy on people to get that information and release it to the Press.

Barr said that what he called “spying” may well could have been completely appropriate (well predicated) and he has no evidence to the contrary.

But he said if anyway, to wink and nod at Trumpster idiots like you that don’t know wtf is going on.

 

[Mac1958]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

 

[Polishprince]

Relax, faun.

Our President and his Wing Man have the documents and have declassified them. We are getting ready for the Big Reveal.

It will be crystal clear exactly what Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, etc., all did and when they did it pretty soon in regards to the FISA warrants against loyal American citizen Carter Page and others.

Right now, Trump is just building this up. Just like before Wrestlemania 23 which was also pre-planned.

Nothing that is in the previously classified documents is new to Donald J Trump or William Barr, at least not now.

You can say, now, that the President is just "talking shit". But I don't think so, as we will all seen one way or another in not very much time. Right now, Trump is trying to make the coupsters sweat a little bit too, as well as build up the suspense.

What big reveal? The FISA applications have already been released and proved to be legitimate.

So what else ya got?

Really? So the general public knows the reason and the predication for the Obama Regime to spy on his political opponents? Do you care to link the documents and the sources that were used to obtain the FISA warrants?

It's not actually been confirmed that Obama spied on his political opponents. That's still under investigation which began more than a year ago. Don't you think it would be prudent to wait for the results rather than to leap to conclusions?

As far as the FISA warrant applications, this is old news. Old news that led to no big reveal....

Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application

... so again I ask.... what big reveal are you expecting? What else ya got?

Obviously it's not your birth we are expecting. That would be a cause of mourning here for many on USMB.

But you are pregnant with Putin's Love Child. So maybe it's you that is expecting to give birth to Russian Collusion.

Spying has been confirmed. And it has been confirmed in numerous ways. BY THE AG. It will be confirmed again by the IG, and then again by The DOJ Attorney assigned to investigating The COUP and Illegal Spying on a Presidential Candidate, and Ultimately ORDERED BY Obama Bin Lying.

Why do we know about The Trump Tower Meeting with FBI Spy and Fusion GPS Employee Natalia V?

How do we know out Private Conversations with The President and World Leaders?

How do we know about legit phone calls between Flynn and a Russian Diplomat arranged by Obama?

How do we know about phone calls Don Jr, made that again turned out to be totally legit.

You have to spy on people to get that information and release it to the Press.

Barr said that what he called “spying” may well could have been completely appropriate (well predicated) and he has no evidence to the contrary.

But he said if anyway, to wink and nod at Trumpster idiots like you that don’t know wtf is going on.

Good point. That's why the docs are getting declassified. So that we the people can make the judgment as to whether the Spying was well predicated or not. And if it was not, then its time to send people to prison for a long time. The Illegal spying against US citizens is a gross violation of our most esteemed Constitution.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep.....dishonesty is a trait you greatly admire....which is why you're a Democrat voter.

Ok....so, Trump appointed Rosenstein as deputy at the FBI but somehow Rosenstein was actually secretly working for the Dems?

You think I have a problem with honesty?

Too funny.

Yep.....Rosenstein stabbed Trump in the back.
Rosenstein was removed once Barr took over and now we finally have an even playing field.
Now somebody who believes in the rule of law can get to the bottom of all of this.....and I suspect Rosenstein is going to have some rough days ahead.

So you're admitting then that the Dems had nothing to do with the appointment of Mueller?

Now why in fuck would you assume that?

LOL...

I just told you, dope.
Because Rosenstein was Trump's guy.

Obviously not.
Trump came into office trusting that people in government were inherently trustworthy. He found out that anyone who worked for the previous administration couldn't be trusted and anyone they recommended was a back-stabber regardless of the political or ideological background.

 

[Mac1958]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180° differently.

I have no doubt about that. None, zero.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ok....so, Trump appointed Rosenstein as deputy at the FBI but somehow Rosenstein was actually secretly working for the Dems?

You think I have a problem with honesty?

Too funny.

Yep.....Rosenstein stabbed Trump in the back.
Rosenstein was removed once Barr took over and now we finally have an even playing field.
Now somebody who believes in the rule of law can get to the bottom of all of this.....and I suspect Rosenstein is going to have some rough days ahead.

So you're admitting then that the Dems had nothing to do with the appointment of Mueller?

Now why in fuck would you assume that?

LOL...

I just told you, dope.
Because Rosenstein was Trump's guy.

Obviously not.
Trump came into office trusting that people in government were inherently trustworthy. He found out that anyone who worked for the previous administration couldn't be trusted and anyone they recommended was a back-stabber regardless of the political or ideological background.

Trump's guy nonetheless.
Not a Democrat in sight.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180 degrees differently.

I have no doubt about that.
.

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our country going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

 

[Mac1958]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180 degrees differently.

I have no doubt about that.
.

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our countey going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180 degrees differently.

I have no doubt about that.
.

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our countey going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

But aren't the Dems trying to do just that? Trying to get the whole story out?

I see The Dems acting on behalf of the American people and the constitution. Not for political gain.

Read the articles of impeachment I posted.
You could literally swap Trump's name in there and it would be accurate.

If you believe that was the correct course of action in 1974, then it certainly is now.

 

[hunarcy]

People can't break the law to hold government accountable. Journalists who don't break the law to obtain the material can print it, but THEY can't print what THEY stole.

Count 17 of the indictments alleges it is a crime to have unauthorized possession and communicate the documents to others.

You're dangerous to the well being of our freedom.


COUNT 17 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information)
A. The general allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated into this Count as though fully set forth herein.
B. From in or about July 2010 and continuing until at least the time of this Superseding Indictment, in an offense begun and committed outside of the jurisdiction of any particular state or district of the United States, the defendant, JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE, who will be first brought to the Eastern District of Virginia, having unauthorized possession of, access to, and control over documents relating to the national defense, willfully and unlawfully caused and attempted to cause such materials to be communicated, delivered, and transmitted to persons not entitled to receive them.
C. Specifically, as alleged above, ASSANGE, having unauthorized possession of State Department cables, classified up to the SECRET level, containing the names of individuals, who risked their safety and freedom by providing information to the United States and our allies, communicated the documents containing names of those sources to all the world by publishing them on the Internet

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download

The SCOTUS has ruled in the past that the Press can publish material that has been labeled secret, so you can smooth out your petticoat on that score. However, hackers like Assange are not the Press.

Perhaps it's not so clear as you make it out to be.

Liability of members of the media: During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court refused to uphold a bar on publication of the Pentagon Papers. Justice White pointed out in a concurring opinion that the Court’s action did not mean that the newspapers and their reporters would be immune from criminal prosecution if they elected to publish the papers. Nevertheless, few, if any reporters, have ever been prosecuted for such leaks. On other hand, reporters have gone to jail for refusing to disclose the source of a leak. For example, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent several months in jail for civil contempt because she would not identify before a grand jury her source in the case that ultimately led to the prosecution of Scooter Libby.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/law-leaks.pdf

From your post: "Nevertheless, few, if any reporters, have ever been prosecuted for such leaks.

Yet.........is the point.

There is cause here for concern. Despite what you say. The government has been ramping up their prosecution of these types of cases.

It certainly deserves our attention. More so than this stupid pissing contest between Democrats and Republicans.

Well, you worry about it. I'll wait until it becomes an issue.

 

[Mac1958]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180 degrees differently.

I have no doubt about that.
.

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our countey going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

But aren't the Dems trying to do just that? Trying to get the whole story out?

I see The Dems acting on behalf of the American people and the constitution. Not for political gain.

Read the articles of impeachment I posted.
You could literally swap Trump's name in there and it would be accurate.

If you believe that was the correct course of action in 1974, then it certainly is now.

What I believe is exactly what I said.
.

 

[Faun]

Tell that to Scooter Libby who was convicted of obstruction with no underlying crime.

Scooter Libby was convicted of four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements.

Great, so show where he was wrongfully convicted of obstruction with no underlying crime....

Considering the fact that they knew who had outed Valarie Plame before they began the investigation and never went after the guilty party....it's obvious.

Because he still obstructed the investigation. And despite some ridiculous claim here that obstruction requires an underlying claim, Libby was indicted and convicted by a jury of obstruction with no underlying crime. Martha Stewart is another example.

The investigation was a sham. It never should have happened. Richard Armitage outed her....and he was fired by Bush for doing it. However, Valarie Plame wasn't a secret agent in the field. Most people that knew her knew she worked for the CIA. Yet for some strange reason Democrats still wanted an investigation so they could go after Dick Cheney. Then her husband went around trying to convince everyone that Saddam wasn't trying to buy uranium. Turns out he did, because we found hundreds of tons of yellow cake uranium in bunkers in Iraq.

What needs to be done is all of the co-conspirators of these hoaxes need to do hard time breaking rocks. Maybe it'll stop this nonsense.

Liar.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States." ~ Patrick Fitzgerald​

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't believe the strategy surrounding impeachment is all politics. There is a process to moving toward impeachment. Having public hearings and gaining public support is very important. That is no doubt why the administration has hobbled that effort at every opportunity.

I find it useful to look back at how this was handled during Watergate. When the congressional hearings began, public support for the president was high. Something like 68%. During, it fell sharply to the low 30's with a majority of America believing the President was culpable. It was the lack of public support that caused Nixon to choose resignation rather than face certain impeachment.

The politics are being played by Republicans attempting to hamper efforts at getting information out to Americans. It's worth noting that they are not allowing the constitutional process to function as it should in these cases.

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180 degrees differently.

I have no doubt about that.
.

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our countey going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

But aren't the Dems trying to do just that? Trying to get the whole story out?

I see The Dems acting on behalf of the American people and the constitution. Not for political gain.

Read the articles of impeachment I posted.
You could literally swap Trump's name in there and it would be accurate.

If you believe that was the correct course of action in 1974, then it certainly is now.

What I believe is exactly what I said.
.

So....nothing?

Just politics, politics ,both sides, politics ...blah...blah....

Was impeachment warranted in 1974 in your opinion?

 

[Mac1958]

My guess is that, if situations were reversed, the parties would both be behaving 180 degrees differently.

I have no doubt about that.
.

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our countey going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

But aren't the Dems trying to do just that? Trying to get the whole story out?

I see The Dems acting on behalf of the American people and the constitution. Not for political gain.

Read the articles of impeachment I posted.
You could literally swap Trump's name in there and it would be accurate.

If you believe that was the correct course of action in 1974, then it certainly is now.

What I believe is exactly what I said.
.

So....nothing?

Just politics, politics ,both sides, politics ...blah...blah....

Was impeachment warranted in 1974 in your opinion?

Yes.

I'll say it again: Law and partisan politics are mutually exclusive.

But the priority is political advantage, regardless of how sincere & altruistic partisans comically pretend to be.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great. That opinion doesn't speak to anything I've posted about the politics surrounding public hearings or impeachment. The politics that you stated were all that mattered.

Do you believe the process should be allowed to be played out or blocked?

Which is in the best interests of our countey going foreward?

Do we at least do what was done in the past or simply disregard all of that for pure political gain?

I encourage you to read the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

But aren't the Dems trying to do just that? Trying to get the whole story out?

I see The Dems acting on behalf of the American people and the constitution. Not for political gain.

Read the articles of impeachment I posted.
You could literally swap Trump's name in there and it would be accurate.

If you believe that was the correct course of action in 1974, then it certainly is now.

What I believe is exactly what I said.
.

So....nothing?

Just politics, politics ,both sides, politics ...blah...blah....

Was impeachment warranted in 1974 in your opinion?

Yes.

I'll say it again: Law and partisan politics are mutually exclusive.

But the priority is political advantage, regardless of how sincere & altruistic partisans comically pretend to be.
.

Ok, so political advantage can be a byproduct of doing the right thing but not necessarily the motivation for doing the right thing.
Just as doing the wrong thing while holding office can bring political disadvantage.

Impeachment is inherently a political action.
That is neither avoidable nor a barrier to action.


Do you see anything in the articles of impeachment from 1974 that looks to apply today?

 

[Mac1958]

I think we need to know the whole story in any situation like this, so that we can determine what if any actions should be taken.

That is different from the fact that both parties are far more interested in political advantage than in finding "the truth" about anything.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

But aren't the Dems trying to do just that? Trying to get the whole story out?

I see The Dems acting on behalf of the American people and the constitution. Not for political gain.

Read the articles of impeachment I posted.
You could literally swap Trump's name in there and it would be accurate.

If you believe that was the correct course of action in 1974, then it certainly is now.

What I believe is exactly what I said.
.

So....nothing?

Just politics, politics ,both sides, politics ...blah...blah....

Was impeachment warranted in 1974 in your opinion?

Yes.

I'll say it again: Law and partisan politics are mutually exclusive.

But the priority is political advantage, regardless of how sincere & altruistic partisans comically pretend to be.
.

Ok, so political advantage can be a byproduct of doing the right thing but not necessarily the motivation for doing the right thing.
Just as doing the wrong thing while holding office can bring political disadvantage.

Impeachment is inherently a political action.
That is neither avoidable nor a barrier to action.


Do you see anything in the articles of impeachment from 1974 that looks to apply today?

I don't know. I'm not going to read them.

We'll see what the facts are. Then we'll watch the Democrats highlight and focus on only the worst parts, and we'll watch the Republicans minimize the worst parts and claim complete victory..

Hopefully the information will be comprehensive enough for the rest of us to draw a comfortable conclusion.
.