Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks to me like this thread is about someone's idea of how to hide behind the rule of law to justify trashing it with the political hit job of impeachment !!! Impeachment without a crime is nothing but a political disagreement !!!
The law is based on the constitution and the left wipes their butt on it every chance they get !!! That's what being a progressive is all about !!! They want to go beyond the constitution and make their own laws with total disregard to the existing ones !!! They view the constitution as flawed at inception and are perfectly willing to disregard any part of it they disagree with !!!
Is this your idea of doing anything any different or better? I'm certainly not seeing it, so why bother reaching for still more mud of this sort to throw back and forth? Now too progressives "view the constitution as flawed at inception." What's next? You going to ask how often progressives beat their wives?
PS: Are we to believe the constitution at inception was perfect or without flaw? What was the value of the black vote again? Funny. Thankfully the founding fathers weren't equally ignorant about the impossibility of perfection and provided a manner to correct the flaws they could not know about at the time of inception. Not equally ignorant or full of themselves!
Interesting that Politico and the Leftists are not asking some pretty specific and simple questions.
Criminal Bribery is clearly a crime.
Criminal Wire Fraud is clearly a crime.
So..... Why is the House not using either one of these “crimes” as an Article of Impeachment?
Should be easy to prove. Nadler accuses President Trump of these “crimes”, says this is fact.
And yet ..... no charge. This kind of Nutty wouldn’t even make it into a movie or book.
You must also be one of the constitutional lawyers or scholars contributing to this thread who knows better than anyone all that's going on from a legal standpoint leading to these impeachment hearings. I'm just an everyday American citizen who not only reads comments and questions by such experts like you in this forum, but I also read and consider lots of other explanations from outside this forum. Call me what you will...
Did you at least read the article? May I ask from where do you get your information and legal knowledge other than from Fox News?
The report, a 169-page assessment of the case for Trump’s removal from office, contends that Trump committed “multiple federal crimes” — ones that Democrats addressed under the broad umbrella of “abuse of power,” the first article of impeachment against the president."
“Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal,” the panel’s Democrats argue, labeling Trump’s behavior “both constitutional and criminal in character” and contending that the president “betrayed the people of this nation” and should be removed from office."
^ explained in the article. How about this for an idea? Take up your issue with the Republicans who are also supporting impeachment. Might help adjust the otherwise blind partisan perspective just a bit I think. Me, I'm just following along until the chips/votes fall where they will. What's broken needs to be fixed in any case, for all our sake, but we're all just spectators watching those we put in office move us either forward or backward, for better or worse. All that well transcends whether Trump is POTUS or not.
Again you can't seem to think in anything but heavily slanted partisan terms...
Of course dismissing the director of the FBI is the prerogative of the POTUS. Are you thinking you are explaining anything I don't know here? It isn't that prerogative I have any problem with or the use of that power. What bugs me is when the use of that power has more to do with self over country. When what the POTUS does seems to be an abuse of that power rather than a question of righting what is wrong. I've got no problem with that sword cutting both ways either, regardless which party is doing wrong or getting cut.
"However, Sessions’ ethics came into question just before then-President-elect Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Sessions was accused of improperly using an FBI plane to visit his family as well as reportedly installing a security fence around his home on the government’s dime. A Justice Department report found that Sessions had avoided paying taxes on the use of his FBI limousine for his daily commute."
Comey wasn't perfect either, but there is a significant difference between what Sessions did, for example, and all that seems to cause the revolving door of hires and fires by Trump. Anyone looking at these facts objectively should agree with whatever house cleaning is appropriate, for country, up to and including White House cleaning if and when also appropriate. Regardless which party occupies!
And Clinton firing every US attorney in the DoJ to make sure he also got the ones investigating his various dealings in Arkansas? Nothing to add on that?
You seem to find noble reasons for Democrats doing what you find loathsome when the Republicans do it. I find them all equally loathsome. That's the difference.
And whether Trump cleans house in the FBI or the FBI tries to outmaneuver their boss and help Congressional Democrats "get Trump"...whatever. Let them all kill each other for all I care. Just stop with the moral sermonizing on "rule of law" because it exists nowhere inside the Beltway, certainly not in the FBI.
That's my bottom line. Until the rule of law applies EQUALLY to ALL of the folks in power, it doesn't apply at all to anyone. The inconsistent and hypocritical application of laws and rules to suit political objectives makes the entire theory of rule of law moot. There are no rules or laws in DC, just suggestions and byzantine paths of machination.
Seriously. Two agencies that revel in their ability to exist and operate outside any bounds of the Constitution or rule of law whatsoever...giving moral sermons on why that is necessary to maintain the rule of law?
It's equivalent to Trump sermonizing on good etiquette or Clinton sermonizing on how to be a proper gentleman.
Anyone in the CIA, FBI, NSA, or IRS has lost the right to even say the phrase "rule of law" out loud without following it immediately with "just kidding."
And Clinton firing every US attorney in the DoJ to make sure he also got the ones investigating his various dealings in Arkansas? Nothing to add on that?
You seem to find noble reasons for Democrats doing what you find loathsome when the Republicans do it. I find them all equally loathsome. That's the difference.
And whether Trump cleans house in the FBI or the FBI tries to outmaneuver their boss and help Congressional Democrats "get Trump"...whatever. Let them all kill each other for all I care. Just stop with the moral sermonizing on "rule of law" because it exists nowhere inside the Beltway, certainly not in the FBI.
That's my bottom line. Until the rule of law applies EQUALLY to ALL of the folks in power, it doesn't apply at all to anyone. The inconsistent and hypocritical application of laws and rules to suit political objectives makes the entire theory of rule of law moot. There are no rules or laws in DC, just suggestions and byzantine paths of machination.
My friend..., back when it was Reagan, I followed those stories and passed judgement. Had you asked me about Reagan then, I would tell you what I thought and why. Same with a few presidents before and after Reagan. Now it's about Trump, and we waste a good deal enough time getting our thoughts straight about the right and/or wrong related to Trump without rehashing all past rights and wrongs of prior presidents.
Don't you think?
Again "two wrongs don't make a right" kind of thing, or three or four or five and forever counting. The idea is to keep the count down, regardless the high historical count to date!
You're bottom line is yet another pipe dream! An absolute impossibility! Wake up. Get rational!
You're like the kid who runs home to mama because the kids are playing too rough and not fair on the playground...
What's your favorite ad hominem appeal to ridicule?
I was being serious for obvious reasons. All you seem to go on about seems pointed in the direction of vigilante rule, or just what else exactly if/when the "bottom line" is complete abandonment of the institutions we rely upon to promote and enforce the rule of law? Comes a point when even ridicule can become appropriate, but thanks for the check. I'll try to refrain though my efforts to stay on higher ground always seem to get dragged back down into the mud...
My friend..., back when it was Reagan, I followed those stories and passed judgement. Had you asked me about Reagan then, I would tell you what I thought and why. Same with a few presidents before and after Reagan. Now it's about Trump, and we waste a good deal enough time getting our thoughts straight about the right and/or wrong related to Trump without rehashing all past rights and wrongs of prior presidents.
Don't you think?
Again "two wrongs don't make a right" kind of thing, or three or four or five and forever counting. The idea is to keep the count down, regardless the high historical count to date!
You're bottom line is yet another pipe dream! An absolute impossibility! Wake up. Get rational!
You're like the kid who runs home to mama because the kids are playing too rough and not fair on the playground...
Not running from anything. I am simply not naive enough to think that if we just slap the President around, be it a Republican or Democrat, then that means we have the rule of law or anything resembling it.
Cops killing unarmed citizens, civil asset forfeiture, red flag laws, IRS confiscations based on groundless suspicion, local/state political protection rackets, law enforcement lying to courts for invalid warrants, government taking schemes that even when exposed simply tell the citizen to go pound sand, etc. There is no rule of law in the US.
There is rule by people possessing a monopoly on force and violence who quote legalese like Scripture whenever they decide to oppress/harass/destroy/kill citizens for whatever political whim strikes them that day. That isn't law, it's the tyranny of the arbitrary.
You keep thinking that this one "righting of a wrong" by a notoriously corrupt organization who did a ton wrong i the process of righting that wrong is to be lauded and respected for trying to foster and protect a rule of law that they don't give a crap about. And you insult me instead of admitting that the entire government, top to bottom, doesn't give two rat's patooties about the rule of law...until it is politically advantageous for them to do so.
My notions of self-preservation and pragmatism ensure that I stay off any government radars, safely anonymous, abiding by the ever changing array of laws and regs, but not for one second do I believe there is anything resembling a rule of law in this country. I respect the tyrant's monopoly on force and violence and I am in no hurry to be caged or killed, so I comply and acquiesce, much as it pains my soul to do so, but I can still voice my opinion...at least until they make that illegal. And my opinion is that if you think impeaching the President restores or protects this nonexistent "rule of law" fantasy of yours, then you're simply deluded.
Go on, insult me again, since that is all you really have in the way of rebutting anything I type.
I was being serious for obvious reasons. All you seem to go on about seems pointed in the direction of vigilante rule, or just what else exactly if/when the "bottom line" is complete abandonment of the institutions we rely upon to promote and enforce the rule of law? Comes a point when even ridicule can become appropriate, but thanks for the check. I'll try to refrain though my efforts to stay on higher ground always seem to get dragged back down into the mud...
Your reliance on institutions who quite obviously do not care one whit about any notion of the rule of law whatsoever is your folly.
I don't suggest rule of any kind, as my 100% morally and logically consistent non-statist views don't allow men to rule other men for any reason or in any way. What I say outright, not suggest, is that the "rule of law" thing you keep harping about is a fantasy, a ghost, a vapor. None of your vaunted "institutions" are held to it, adhere to it, believe in it or come anywhere close to following it, yet they are, to you, its representation? That makes no sense whatsoever, logically or philosophically.
That's not a suggestion. It's a statement of pure fact. The institutions you think ARE the rule of law exist and operate in every way that negates the theory by definition. They are unaccountable bureaucrats with unlimited power and almost perfect anonymity. There is no rule of law for such people, and they number in the millions.
I don't suggest rule of anything, but I also am not naive enough to think that these utterly corrupt, despotic "institutions" represent the rule of law.
If you do, good for you. Now, back to your insults....
Your reliance on institutions who quite obviously do not care one whit about any notion of the rule of law whatsoever is your folly.
I don't suggest rule of any kind, as my 100% morally and logically consistent non-statist views don't allow men to rule other men for any reason or in any way. What I say outright, not suggest, is that the "rule of law" thing you keep harping about is a fantasy, a ghost, a vapor. None of your vaunted "institutions" are held to it, adhere to it, believe in it or come anywhere close to following it, yet they are, to you, its representation? That makes no sense whatsoever, logically or philosophically.
That's not a suggestion. It's a statement of pure fact. The institutions you think ARE the rule of law exist and operate in every way that negates the theory by definition. They are unaccountable bureaucrats with unlimited power and almost perfect anonymity. There is no rule of law for such people, and they number in the millions.
I don't suggest rule of anything, but I also am not naive enough to think that these utterly corrupt, despotic "institutions" represent the rule of law.
If you do, good for you. Now, back to your insults....
I need to sign off now, so sadly there is no more time for ridicule or insults. I've been trying to avoid them as explained before, but you make that a little difficult when it seems you are insulting my intelligence. You don't suggest rule of any kind, but don't seem able to make the connection with that sort of thinking and what brings about vigilante rule? Seems we're not suggesting reason or logic of any kind either. Perhaps best we leave it at that and good luck to you too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
