Trump

[1972Shocker]

Interesting tidbit if true: Former NSA Director Mike Rogers Reportedly Cooperating in Durham Probe

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/...-durham-probe/

Navy Vice Admiral Mike Rogers was primarily responsible for discovery and stopping the mass un-maskings that were happening in the Obama administraation. Hard to say what information he can provide relative to the Barr/Durham investigations but it is likely he knows where at least some of the bodies are buried.

[1972Shocker]

[wufan]

The Horowitz Report is incredible and horrifying. I assume the Dems and their communication outlets at CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. will ignore it as much as they can and I create stories attacking Barr and Durham. The FBI lied, falsified documents, and withheld exculpatory evidence so they could spy on an American and try to find dirt on a politician they don't like. This is banana republic stuff and should be front page news until the perp walks begin. Either Christopher Wray raises hell or he needs to go.

Related to this...I need to hear someone that is sympathetic to the impeachment explain how it is OK for Trump's campaign to be spied on during a race and then get investigated for 2 years for being a Russian stooge of all things, but Joe Biden is somehow protected from being investigated. Everyone says getting corruption out of Ukraine is in our national interest. The Biden situation is screaming for an investigation but apparently if you are running for office you are exempt, unless of course you are Donald Trump. I guess Orange Man Bad justifies anything.

I’m not sympathetic to the impeachment, and you do a nice job of pointing out the hypocrisy of situation, which I can’t defend. That said, I will lay out the best rationale defense I can for impeachment:

High crimes and misdemeanors is a 500 year old British Common Law proceeding. It is utilized for officials in political positions that make the laws that are followed. An obvious hypothetical situation would be if a governor passed a law that stated that the governor receives a 50% share of all mineral rights in the state. So, the Governor could then collect a massive amount of money and it would be perfectly legal. HC&M is therefore utilized to stop some level of cronyism regardless of legality.

So, the argument is that Trump utilized the laws in place to disperse or withhold aide and sought political favors that would gain him an unfair advantage in his re-election campaign. Additionally, since this was being investigated by the House, as per their right, and Trump didn’t comply (although legal), this is tantamount to obstructing the will of the legislative branch. Because of the nature of politics, international relations, and legislation, the standard for such HC&M is very high, requiring a 2/3 majority.

Basically, impeachment works as a vigilante mob, constitutionally enacted to prevent government corruption. Impeachment hearings should probably be a much more regular part of our Congressional government.

[1972Shocker]

Basically, impeachment works as a vigilante mob, constitutionally enacted to prevent government corruption. Impeachment hearings should probably be a much more regular part of our Congressional government.

Exactly what the framers feared and did not want. The entire basis of our form of government was to avoid mob rule in the form of pure democracy and to provided checks and balances in the form of 3 branches of government with separate powers.

I totally disagree that Trump obstructed Congress by lawfully exercising his right of executive privilege. Congress voluntarily declined to challenge this in the courts which is the prescribed counter to this. The House simply decided it wasn't worth the effort to pursue this yet still included it as an article of impeachment.

I am pretty sure the framers also were not fond of the guilty until proven innocent posture adopted by the Democrat party.

The requirement for a 67 vote super-majority in the senate to remove a President through the impeachment process is prima facie evidence that the framers wanted to make removal of the President through impeachment very difficult and rare to such a degree that it would hopefully only be used in clear cut cases.

Alexander Hamilton, in fact, expressly warned that the greatest danger of impeachment would be the decision based "more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” In other words a vigilante mob.

In fact, even Pelosi expressed the sentiment that the any impeachment should be bipartisan or nonpartisan. Several other Democrats made the same statements either contemporaneously or during the previous impeachment proceeding 20 years ago.

A partisan impeachment vote is exactly what the Framers feared

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...framers-feared

The fact that we have Presidential elections every 4 years is also a strong evidence that the framers wanted to depend on the will of the people to remove a President from office and not on regular and frequent impeachment proceedings especially one that does not even specify a crime in the articles of impeachment.

No the framers clearly wanted impeachment to be rare and nonpartisan with a very strong consensus and not simply a political tool of the house majority.

I think it is pretty clear the Democrats are using impeachment to do exactly what they are accusing the President of doing. Attempting to influence the 2020 elections.

[wufan]

“The requirement for a 67 vote super-majority in the senate to remove a President through the impeachment process is prima facie evidence that the framers wanted to make removal of the President through impeachment very difficult and rare to such a degree that it would hopefully on be used in clear cut cases.”


Yes. I don’t disagree with you. I even pointed it out that removal requires 2/3 majority, making it exceedingly difficult “to remove an official”. Having the House review corruption seems to be a good thing, i.e. having impeachment powers, which they should exercise regularly, even if it doesn’t get sent to the Senate for trial.

[1972Shocker]

“The requirement for a 67 vote super-majority in the senate to remove a President through the impeachment process is prima facie evidence that the framers wanted to make removal of the President through impeachment very difficult and rare to such a degree that it would hopefully on be used in clear cut cases.”


Yes. I don’t disagree with you. I even pointed it out that removal requires 2/3 majority, making it exceedingly difficult “to remove an official”. Having the House review corruption seems to be a good thing, i.e. having impeachment powers, which they should exercise regularly, even if it doesn’t get sent to the Senate for trial.

They have plenty of oversight powers and other powers (i.e. control of the purse strings) to exercise their constitutional granted role. Overturning and election simply because you did not like the outcome is not one of them. I have no problem with the impeachment process if it is truly warranted and excercised appropriately. It is clear to me that is not the case with the present situation and it is also clear to me that the framers did not intend it to be a common occurrence. We will just have to disagree on the point that impeachment should be exercised regularly although I will grant you that would bring government to a stand still which maybe would not be a bad thing although clearly still not what the framers intended.

So far the Dem's impeachment push has been very favorable for the President so I am not that upset that the Dems have chosen to play this game.

BTW, the Democrats own legal expert has stated that if the articles of impeachment are not delivered to the Senate then there has been no impeachment. I suppose you would have to call it a political base appeasement. If that is all you want to do then just do a motion of censure and move on.

[ShockingButTrue]

The Horowitz Report is incredible and horrifying. I assume the Dems and their communication outlets at CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. will ignore it as much as they can and I create stories attacking Barr and Durham. The FBI lied, falsified documents, and withheld exculpatory evidence so they could spy on an American and try to find dirt on a politician they don't like. This is banana republic stuff and should be front page news until the perp walks begin. Either Christopher Wray raises hell or he needs to go.

Related to this...I need to hear someone that is sympathetic to the impeachment explain how it is OK for Trump's campaign to be spied on during a race and then get investigated for 2 years for being a Russian stooge of all things, but Joe Biden is somehow protected from being investigated. Everyone says getting corruption out of Ukraine is in our national interest. The Biden situation is screaming for an investigation but apparently if you are running for office you are exempt, unless of course you are Donald Trump. I guess Orange Man Bad justifies anything.

It's a bit of an outrage really. They'd have to think the average voter is either deaf, dumb or blind to not see through this. Oh, wait...

If I was an honest liberal -I know, I know- I'd be concerned if pelosi really has the goods to rally the base for '20, because all of this is a backdrop to the impeachment fiasco. Hopefully Graham means it when he says he's going to call the fisa application signers before the Senate.

[Kung Wu]

The Republicans should not be pressing Pelosi to hurry up. They should be encouraging her to take her time.

[WuDrWu]

And all we're going to hear about in the news is this new email about Ukraine.

[1972Shocker]

Feel the Bern:

[ShockTalk]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-gov-blocks-some-federal-judges-from-officiating-at-weddings-—-because-they-might-be-trump-nominees/ar-BBYgXNa?ocid=spartandhp

Yes, that's correct, Cuomo is an idiot. Vetoed a bipartisan bill sponsored by the Democrats that passed the NY Senate 61 to 1 and the state Assembly by 144-2 just because Trump appointed some of their Federal judges.

[ShockerPrez]

Feel the Bern:

Fascist? No, no fascism here. That orange man lowering your taxes and removing regulations is the fascist.

[Kung Wu]

Is that a direct quote? He just threatened to bring the Gestapo to the doors of our fossil fuel executives?!

Mr. Koch, are you watching?

[ShockerPrez]

And the planet is already destroyed?? Well, what's the point of a green new deal, then? I thought we had another 12 years from AOC in addition to the 10 Al Gore gave us in 2005.

I'm so depressed right now. Take whatever of mine you need, government. Liberty, property, everything. Just save the planet so I can live my subsistent life you deem acceptable for me to have. I trust you.

[1972Shocker]

Democrats Push an “Explosive” Email About the Ukrainian Aid Hold, It Actually Contradicts Their Narrative

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/201...cts-narrative/

Notice what it actually says. In the second sentence, Duffey says the hold is temporary and will not interfere with the execution of the final policy direction. What that means is that this hold was never meant to go past the legal date by which the aid was supposed to be released. This was not an email laying out a nefarious plan to go around Congress and break the law. It was a ho-hum advisement of a completely legal, brief pause.