Well, lms, make sure you donate to the Comet Fund.

Sky Rock go boom boom. Make all better.

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
The coup d’etat will continue.

I'll get my tux.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Well, lms, make sure you donate to the Comet Fund.

Sky Rock go boom boom. Make all better.

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
The coup d’etat will continue.

I'll get my tux.

Yeah I hear ya Para I'll donate a little more than my usual monthly contribution next time.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I would say the only mistake Barr has made so far is trusting Mueller to do follow the law. Mueller used his friendship with Barr to completely turn the American form of justice on it's head, not to mention basically calling Barr a liar.

Can’t fault you for your conclusions. They seem as plausible as the next.

But, it’s also hard to say “for sure” that any other choice along Barr’s decision tree would have produced better.

Vilify and destroy seems to be applied to decisive actions about anything now-a-days.

I see Barr as primarily concerned with following facts to their conclusions. I don’t see him as Trump’s man. Barr seems principled in his decisions and unimpressed by the partisan bluster.

I also see Barr as someone who can restore a sense of gravity to the non-partisan role of government.

Political sobriety is what our system needs to hold us together in such partisan times.

If it breaks down, we get things like the Lecompton Constitution where Kansas wound up with two constitutions and two governments at the same time.

It is a rational, middle sobriety that keeps factions together. Barr seems to be such a government actor. He is required by law to be above the fray’s influence.

If the House impeaches but the Senate does not convict, a neutral process was followed. That is a victory for constitutional order. I see Barr as an AG that is intent on following the order set out in the Constitution on all issues.

The dissatisfaction crowd can only get dangerously out of hand if the middle or more moderating forces disappear from neutral government and the electorate's moderating voices see no hope for politically neutral administration.

What keeps the left wing from simply refusing to follow the electoral college to declare a popular vote candidate the new president and rightful government?

To me, it is more rational voices who still have confidence in following a constitutional order that clips that peak.

While many sides pitch their fits, Barr seems to be using his experience to pack in some hard plate while he goes about his duty for our country.

If he was duped, what should he do? Mueller’s now tried to sing a tone-deaf exit tune. I don’t think we’ve heard the last from Mueller. But, I sense that Barr will give an even-keeled response.

To me, it’s what we, as a country, need from an AG.

lastmanstanding,

Donald Trump is still standing.

I think we will win.

I don't need to see people arrested. My primary desire is to get the truth revealed. The truth is President Trump's greatest shield.

Check the waiver. Sanity is not a requirement.

quote:

I don't need to see people arrested.

I do. Without consequences our justice system is completely useless. Do criminals care if the “truth comes out” when that truth will have absolutely no effect on them? Of course not. Their criminal behavior will not slow or stop. It will accelerate.

Wait until the next leftist gets put in the White House. The weaponization of the federal government against the people who oppose them will make FISA abuse and IRS scandals look positively amateur. And they won’t even bother trying to hide it. Why would they when they know there will never be any consequences?

You are a heck of a man SDY! If the hammer doesn't drop on some principal players soon and hard can you imagine what a shit show the next election will be? If they went as far as they did to keep Trump from taking office the first time there will be absolutely no limits on what they would do stop his reelection if the price isn't paid for what has already taken place.

I disagree, arrests are mandatory without arrests and accountability the truth will go unnoticed and won't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

I don't need to see people arrested.

I do. Without consequences our justice system is completely useless. Do criminals care if the “truth comes out” when that truth will have absolutely no effect on them? Of course not. Their criminal behavior will not slow or stop. It will accelerate.

Wait until the next leftist gets put in the White House. The weaponization of the federal government against the people who oppose them will make FISA abuse and IRS scandals look positively amateur. And they won’t even bother trying to hide it. Why would they when they know there will never be any consequences?

Truth matters more than justice in the political world. That's where the power is.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Truth matters more than justice in the political world. That's where the power is.

That's a very intriguing statement.

What example are you thinking of?

I always thought justice was the result of truth.

This is not a challenge but a question because I have never thought of truth and justice in the way you stated.

Truth seems irrelevant to politics most times anymore.

The DEMS seem to be peddling untruth to move along.

A few people from the government ranks seeing the inside of a courtroom would, I imagine, encourage others to fly right. No?

I always thought that political power was more in "perception" than truth.

The continual attacks on Trump seem to be born of spinning a perception, not a search for truth.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

I don't need to see people arrested.

I do. Without consequences our justice system is completely useless. Do criminals care if the “truth comes out” when that truth will have absolutely no effect on them? Of course not. Their criminal behavior will not slow or stop. It will accelerate.

Wait until the next leftist gets put in the White House. The weaponization of the federal government against the people who oppose them will make FISA abuse and IRS scandals look positively amateur. And they won’t even bother trying to hide it. Why would they when they know there will never be any consequences?

Need to see people get arrested? No I don’t, but I’d agree with mbinky that the country probably does need to see people get arrested for the reasons stated.

Now if we are talking about what we want, arguments could be made for much more dramatic punishments, but I’d be happy to see many of these folks check in to club fed.

Edit: fix typo s/much for/much more/

This message has been edited. Last edited by: slosig,

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Truth matters more than justice in the political world. That's where the power is.

That's a very intriguing statement.

What example are you thinking of?

I always thought justice was the result of truth.

This is not a challenge but a question because I have never thought of truth and justice in the way you stated.

Truth seems irrelevant to politics most times anymore.

The DEMS seem to be peddling untruth to move along.

A few people from the government ranks seeing the inside of a courtroom would, I imagine, encourage others to fly right. No?

I always thought that political power was more in "perception" than truth.

The continual attacks on Trump seem to be born of spinning a perception, not a search for truth.

Whose truth? CNN’s? Adam Shitt’s? Barry O’Blunder’s? Bill Clinton’s Shrew’s?

It seems that it is a rare person in the political arena that even has a clue what the truth is, much less cares.

To a large extent, truth has become subjective to those incapable of thinking for themselves.

I was simply thinking that if the people could actually see the truth of what's going on, those who are peddling in lies will no longer have any sway or power regardless if they are sitting in a cell or not.

I suppose what I mean is that truth reaching millions of people is more powerful than a handful of people going to prison. Though I guess one could reason that "justice" in this case would be the influence of the liars being marginalized. But now I'm rambling a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I'm tired of watching this entire parade of bullshit from both sides. I don't want to hear anymore talking heads like Sean Hannity "warning" Comey and others to take his advice and invoke their right to remain silent. He has no business warning anybody about anything. He's a talking head with absolutely ZERO power to do anything to anybody.

Digenova and Sundance who somehow have all the indisputable evidence on all the dirty little bastards. I'll even throw some on Trump. How long has he been promising to declassify all this shit for everybody to see?? I think we are all in for a big disappointment when the declassified tidbits come out.

Wake me up when someone, anyone is doing a perp walk! Even some low level piece of shit!
I want to see major players going down while at the same time Trump is giving a national broadcast address naming names and what they did while on a split screen Comey, Brennan and Hillary and Clapper,Strozk and Page are all getting cuffed and stuffed! What are the chances of something like this even remotely happening? I think we all know the answer to that.

Good lord SDY how do you keep your head buried so deep in this shit and keep your sanity!?!? Bless your heart for doing it but damn dude you're going to need some counseling when this is over with! Oh wait this entire charade has no ending it's perpetual motion! Good luck....

This right here.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I was simply thinking that if the people could actually see the truth of what's going on, those who are peddling in lies will no longer have any sway or power regardless if they are sitting in a cell or not.

Thanks. I was just trying to "get it" but couldn't work it out without an example or more.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I was simply thinking that if the people could actually see the truth of what's going on, those who are peddling in lies will no longer have any sway or power regardless if they are sitting in a cell or not.

Thanks. I was just trying to "get it" but couldn't work it out without an example or more.

Out here in the looney left, people could care less about the truth. They just hate President Trump and I honestly don't think they would be upset to learn that Barry spied on his political opponents and weaponized the FBI and CIA against its own citizens.

However, if President Trump did it, all of a sudden, they'd find a moral compass and they'd be aghast!

I want to see people in shackles. Actually hanging from gallows would be a better message sent. This can never happen again.

Tony.

For background if anyone is interested in why there is acrimony on what impeachment even means:

" The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words. There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

Congressional Interpretation
The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make: "What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

An Indictable Crime
The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon.

The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms. There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

In the past, England had used impeachment of the King's ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).

Misdemeanor
The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

Relating to the President's Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?) How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress. Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial. Impeachment Trials The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case.

The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3). If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented.

Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..." For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).

However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one -- "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer -- the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority "on all fours" for the proposition either way.

However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question. The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts. Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions.

The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case: "Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result.

It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis." This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253." Link

Complicated and unclear, eh?

Seems to me that where political questions are complicated and unclear, voices for one approach or another often let loud ego lead the way. It's a good thing that politicians, Special Counsels, FBI Directors and other officials don't have a lot of that.

What is clear is that the effort to go after President Trump will splinter into a lot of groups if the DEMS push forward. It gets harder the farther they go.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

I don't need to see people arrested.

I do. Without consequences our justice system is completely useless. Do criminals care if the “truth comes out” when that truth will have absolutely no effect on them? Of course not. Their criminal behavior will not slow or stop. It will accelerate.

Wait until the next leftist gets put in the White House. The weaponization of the federal government against the people who oppose them will make FISA abuse and IRS scandals look positively amateur. And they won’t even bother trying to hide it. Why would they when they know there will never be any consequences?

^^^ Absolutely true.

"Actor Jeffrey Wright on Wednesday appeared to warn that when the political left in America “get the power” back from Republicans, “everybody else” should “fucking duck.”

“Message from the @GOP:” Jeffrey Wright began, “There are no principles — not ethical, moral, legal, constitutional, religious, spiritual — NONE. There’s only power. And when we get the power, everybody else fucking duck.”

https://www.breitbart.com/ente...ody-else-fking-duck/

He's just saying-- whoever the Hell he is-- what all the Democrats are thinking.

The most powerful agencies of our government were involved in an attempted coup-- and not one fucking thing happened to any of them! Except a lot of spluttering and arm waving and empty warnings of impending doom for the traitors.

What message does that send them?

I want these crazy Democrats to go full steam ahead on impeachment now:

1. It takes their focus off actually winning 2020 with a viable candidate

2. It will energize the Trump base like you've never seen before AND bring a lot of sympathetic people on board who see this as what it really is: punishment for beating Hillary in 2016

3. It makes the Democrats look completely insane and not reasonable

4. The Senate will shut down any impeachment proceeding quick even if the House goes full-tilt on it.

5. It will result in a huge landslide win for Trump in 2020, making Reagan vs Mondale look like a walk in the park.

My cynical self has said this before in regards to obtaining convictions against those who pushed this whole phony investigation and attempted coup. Maybe some low level folks will become scapegoats. Nothing will happen to anyone at higher levels. Gutless Republicans will complain and get press time but fail to push for aggressive and thorough investigaTions. “Hey, I’ve got a great gig here, don’t wanna stir up to much and risk blowback. Besides, the deep state finNces my campaigns too. Don’t wanna piss off the bosses”. No real justice for Hillary, O, staff, Feds. Gutless Republicans should be scouring their districts for star investigators, proscecuters and other key personal who will roll up their sleeves and join the AG’s office or other proper groups and assist. The whole stinking thing is worthy of a Nuerenberg legal effort. My cynicism says won’t happen.