You made one mistake... the Republicans don't control the Supreme Court. The justices that serve there are a majority liberal bunch. Political parties typically have no influence on the SCOTUS, however the appointment of liberal or conservative justices plays a major part in their rulings (unfortunately). I would expect justices to rule according to the US Constitution. Instead, too many of them are looking at European rulings and laws to form their "opinions".
@Goforit1010 That is just semantics. The majority of justices were chosen by Republican presidents. So we are screwed. Trump is going to create a constitutional crisis. He will fire the independent counsel. He is laying the ground work claiming that Mueller has conflicts of interests and that he should not investigate his or his family's personal fiances. He could do it one of several different ways. He could fire the Attorney General and hire on who fires Mueller or he could fire Mueller outright. Either way we will have a Presidental administration who in all likelihood are guilty of criminal wrongdoing and we will have no way to bring them to justice. With his ability to pardon, even if there is an investigation after he is gone, there will be no way to hold them accountable.That will set a new standard for the Presidency. So even if we survive Trump, we are doomed. Mostly up until now, most Presidents have respected the unwritten limits of the office.
I haven't seen or read anything that Trump did can be considered criminal. Muller needs to be fired. He and Comey are BFF's. Since Comey is part of the investigation, that IS a conflict of interest. How can Muller be unbiased?And what's the investigation about anyway? That Trump talked to Putin at the G20 (in secret)? Like duhhhh... so what? As the President, I expect he'll have MANY meetings with other heads of state also!As for the Russians hacked the election, please... get OVER it! There's ZERO proof of that.If y'all are still upset Hillary win more votes than Trump, get over that too, because that's been how this country works ever since the country was formed. And yes, it's happened in the past too.As far as the SCOTUS goes, they've handed down FAR more liberal opinions in the last decade than conservative ones. So get over that too!
@Goforit1010 He and Comey are bffs? Based on what evidence. Besides, there is no law or reason to recuse based on friendships. If that were the case, he would have never been selected. It is almost as silly as claiming party affiliation is grounds for recusal. Are we going to claim only Republicans can investigate Republicans?Anyway back to facts. We have no idea of what the investigation has uncovered. So unless you are apart of Mueller's legal team, please refrain from making any claims. We only know what has been reported in the press. So any reasonable guess would probably take into account that Mueller leading an official investigation with the power or subpoena, etc. with qualified investigators has turned up much more. But we won't know for at least six months or more what he has found.As for what has seen uncovered in the press, let's talk about it in my next post.
@Goforit1010 Now for facts. U. S. intelligence organizations unanimously agree that Russia interfered with our election. In fact, this may have been one of the most successful covert operations in the modern era.That is a fact.We have no idea if they colluded with Trump or not. But we do know this;A warning from U. S. intelligence went out in May of that election year from the CIA. That warning said that Russian officials were having improper contact with Trump campaign associates. We know that Michael Flynn was one of those people. Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, etc. were on that list too. And the thing that is troubling is that even after the warning went out and the Trump campaign was informed by the FBI, the communications went on. And then further, the Trump campaign lied about it repeatedly. Jeff Sessions lied about his contacts, Trump Jr., Michael Flynn, etc. They lied about having meetings or speaking with Russian officials.
So what if all those people spoke with Trump campaign affiliates. What did it gain them? What was discussed? Bill Clinton talked with Loretta Lynch right before Comey was to announce his investigation decision - supposedly about grandkids. And you believe that too, right? by the way, WHAT'S TAKING SO LONG TO LOCK THAT BITCH UP? Comey was the one who recommended Muller be the special prosecutor, since he was like #2 or #3 in the FBI. The 2 worked together. They have/had a working relationship, but you're right, there's no bias there.IF... the Russians TRULY interfered with our election, just HOW did that affect it? Dead people, and illegal aliens vote in EVERY election and I swear, that has FAR greater impact than any Russian hacking did! Clinton was a horrible candidate. Her basic tenet for getting elected was "Trump sucks", "I'm better because I'm a woman". There were enough people who were fed up with her mishandling classified information to NOT elect her.
I guarantee you, if I were the Russians, I'd ABSOLUTELY want Hillary in office so I could KEEP hacking her UNSECURED server for secrets! What the Hell does it gain the Russians to have Trump in office instead of Hillary? She's the one who GAVE away 20% of the US mined uranium as Secy of State, while Billy-boy was giving a $500G speech in Moscow for the Clinton Foundation. If anything, Hillary was FAR more amicable toward Russia.So what are you saying? That Russia F'd up their plan and had more fake votes for Hillary, thinking that's how our Constitution works - more votes = getting elected?
@Goforit1010 Again with the fantasy. We have no idea of what Russia gained. We can only speculate. Like ending funding for the rebels in Syria. That could have been something they gained. Ending sanctions against Russia could have been on the table, seeing that Trump was seeking to end or ease them. Backing away from our relations with Europe could have been on the table, since Trump questioned our participation in NATO. If Putin could separate America from Europe that would be a big win. I could go on. But we will have to see what Mueller's investigation turns up. Will he have evidence of agreements here? Will he be able to investigate and find out exactly what financial obligations Trump had with the Russian mafia/government? We will see. If anyone can find this information, it would be Mueller.I have no idea what you bring up the Clintons other than to distract. If there was anything to Hillary's emails it would have been uncovered. cont'd next post
@Goforit1010 I mean think of it. If Hillary's closest aides actually met with a foreign government who claimed they could provide dirt on Trump, they would be peeling you off the ceiling. You would be screaming from the top of Mt. Everest. But the fact is that they only found a few improper emails on her personal server. The claim is that she had more. Which was beyond their ability to subpoena anyway. She had the choice to provide them or not. As for the Russians wanting Hillary in office, that is beyond laughable. They hated Obama and they hated her. Because Hillary was going to be even more harsh with them in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, etc. Putin is menacing the baltic states in a way he could not have earlier. Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, etc. are all complaining of Russian interference in their sovereignty. But we have an administration that is going to look the other way. . . for some unknown reasons.Just hoping that Mueller finds out about those reasons.
"Which was beyond their ability to subpoena anyway." Um, Congress and the courts basically can subpoena anything if they have probable cause. Especially if someone holding or held public office is being served.
@Thisperson98 Just semantics. Did you read the subpoena? The request was specific to emails about or pertaining to Libya, Benghazi, etc.
I wasn't talking about that investigation, I am talking about the investigation about mishandling classified information.
@Thisperson98 ? So, there was other classified information she mishandled besides the information she sent in her emails? Can you provide information on that? Because I only know about the charge she sent classified information in email exchanges.
So, you know she mishandled classified information when it came to her emails. Which is a crime.
@Thisperson98 According to whom?You?You aren't in law enforcement are you? You work for the FBI?
According to the legal statutes, she committed a crime. The statute even says that there doesn't need to be intent.
@Thisperson98 You are citing things that are not factual. The conclusion was she did things that were improper, unethical, but they were not considered to be criminal. That is a fact. If you disagree with the findings of the investigation, well you just disagree. I don't think I could live in this country if you alone got to decide what was criminal.
Legal statutes are the law. What is not factual about them?
@Thisperson98 Your interpretation of those statutes are not based on facts. The determination was made, the conduct was negligent. It was improper. But it was not criminal.Again, you don't work for the FBI do you? So why do I care about your interpretation?
Being negligent with classified information is a crime under the law. It even has negligence in the statute.
@Thisperson98 And the FBI does not agree with your interpretation of that statute. They investigated her and found no sane investigative body would bring charges against her. Done and done.
Investigative bodies don't bring charges, they only investigate.
@Thisperson98 And? Did the recommend bringing charges? You just argue in circles. We both know what the statement from the FBI said.
The FBI never recommends anything. That is up to the prosecutors.
@Thisperson98 You are just arguing semantics again. The FBI made a recommendation on this case. Of course, the Justice Department would consider their recommendation in bringing charges.
Do you understand the FBI never recommends anything? And the FBI said you had to prove intent, which in this case the statute says you don't.
Ending sanctions against the Syrian rebels or Russia (what sanctions do we impose again them?), or our relations with Europe (because of Trumps complaints against NATO nations). Trump cannot do ANY of those this w/o Congressional approval, especially concerning NATO since that involves multiple treaties with multiple nations! Get real here. There are too many R's that would oppose him (along with all the D's - just cause he's an R Pres.).
In FACT, Hillary's campaign DID meet with Ukrainian individuals to affect our election. They used the Ukrainians to purposely put out false information about Trump.Since there were 2 major party candidates in this past election, why is the media PURPOSELY avoiding ANY information concerning Hillary's involvement with foreign entities during the campaign too? Muller hired nothing but liberals and former Clinton Foundation people. That guy needs to go. If ya want an independent counsel to investigate, fine. But make sure there are ZERO ties to EITHER campaign. As for Hillary and her mishandling classified information, the law is pretty damn clear. I work for the US Govt. I've personally handled classified info in the past. I take annual training on how to properly handle it, should my job require it. Hillary had over 3000 classified emails on her PRIVATE server. That in itself is 150% illegal and Comey F'd up his investigation by letting her walk! She belongs behind bars!
two down votes. fuck my life. GaG should make it that whoever down votes leaves a reply
hope he gets re-elected, even better make it to were he is crowned king.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
He's already committed impeachable offenses. "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."So to impeach Trump we have to impeach Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Those two have to go, they don't care that it's Trump in the Whitehouse because he's letting them run the show and he's REPUBLICAN. Republican leadership would look PRETTY STUPID having voted a guy in just to vote him out, it sends the message that their picks during the primaries were not good to begin with. Which they weren't. All the Republican candidates were shitty picks. So that's why it's taking so long.Republicans are trying to save face by letting Trump dig his own grave because they didn't have any better canidates to vote for. This last vote had the worst voter turnout in decades. People didn't want to vote for Killary or Dump.
An impeachable offense has to be a crime. It can't be because they don't like them.
@Thisperson98 No, impeachable offenses do not have to be criminal. I don't understand why ignorance is substituted for fact. Do you remember a President named Bill Clinton? He was impeached in the House for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That is not a crime. It was unethical. It was immoral. But it was hardly criminal. We are in unknown territory now because Trump is so unethical and immoral he is leading us to the cliff of a constitutional crisis. We are staring at an abyss where we don't know if the President can be tried or held accountable for wrong doing. It would appear that the Founding Fathers simply trusted us to not elect criminals or idiots. They had no contingency for this.
@RolandCuthbert actually bill did commit a crime. It is called perjury.
@Thisperson98 By whom?
@RolandCuthbert what do you mean "by whom"?Bill Clinton lied under oath in a civil lawsuit, which is perjury.
@Thisperson98 You realize this was tried in the Congress right? You have "google"?And civil suits are not criminal. Hence the word, "civil".
@RolandCuthbert it was a civil matter, then he lied in the civil matter. Lying under oath in a civil court is the same as lying under oath in a criminal court.
@RolandCuthbert lying under oath to Congress is a crime, but Clinton lied under oath in a civil court. And like I said lying under oath is called perjury and it is a crime.
@Thisperson98 I am going to repeat. . ."you do realize this was tried in the Congress"? If you don't know that, please say so. Then I can tell you what the results were.You have to be convicted to be guilty of a crime.
@RolandCuthbert I know the perjury hearing was done in front of the Senate. But he committed perjury in a civil court. you don't need to be convicted for you to have committed a crime. It is just like murderer, who every sane person knows killed someone, but they got off on a technicality. No one would deny that the murderer committed a crime.
@Thisperson98 Oh it is absolutely not like a murderer. That is not even in the same universe. That's why we elect officials and pick qualified people to run the FBI, CIA, etc. They understand the charge of perjury. And we the people having elected these folks to office, must abide by their decisions.How we got off on this tangent is strange. An impeachable offense does not have to be criminal. That is a fact.
@RolandCuthbert no, the constitution states it has to be crime to be impeached. Perjury is lying under oath, I have yet heard any legal expert say otherwise.
@RolandCuthbert I also haven't heard any legal expert that says lying under oath isn't perjury.
@Thisperson98 You are just stating falsehoods. What crime did Nixon commit? Andrew Jackson? Bill Clinton?Impeachment is a political process. It is not a criminal trial. Read the Constitution."The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes."Congress has no authority to bring criminal charges against the President.
@Thisperson98 You can talk about what is or is not perjury until the end of time. I am sure that if you were in Congress, you would have Clinton guilty. But the facts say otherwise. That is how our government functions. Like it or not.
@RolandCuthbert "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."US constitution article 2 section 4It only listed crimes. And perjury is lying under oath which is a crime. criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/perjury.html
@Thisperson98 You are just arguing semantics. You don't know the Constitution or the political process. So if impeachment can only happen because of a crime, tell me about the trial for President Nixon. Was he found guilty or innocent?:D
@RolandCuthbert he was pardoned, which means he can't go to trial. And he left before impeachment.
@RolandCuthbert it looks like I know the constitution better than you.
@Thisperson98 I know he was pardoned. You claimed in order to bring an impeachment process, the President had to be guilty of a crime. Which means there had to be a criminal court, with a jury and judge. He had to be found guilty and then sentenced.Again, the impeachment process is political. It is not a criminal proceeding. Most lawyers believe the Constitution does not allow for a sitting President to face criminal charges. He must be impeached first and then criminal charges brought up afterwards. Only then can be found guilty or not of whatever "crime".
@Thisperson98 Haha! You don't know squat. For instance, if the Democrats had control of the House, they would already be an impeachment process. Trump would be impeached in the House and whole thing would be in the Senate by now.Yet, you and other Trump supporters would be totally confident in his innocence.Do you see how that works? Impeachment is political. Criminality is another matter. The Constitution details this, yet you somehow missed that.
@RolandCuthbert to be impeached you need to commit a crime. Like the constitution says.
Where does the constitution says this is a political matter?
@Thisperson98 If the Democrats take the House in the mid-terms. He will be impeached. If they do not take the House, he won't be impeached. It has nothing to do with criminality. Again, it is a political football. And no matter what Mueller's investigation turns up a year from now or so, it will still be political. If evidence that a crime was committed turns up, some/most Republicans will still vote against impeachment. Democrats will have to have a majority to start the process. This is totally independent of any actual crime being committed. These are facts.
@RolandCuthbert so you admit Democrats don't care about the constitution?
@Thisperson98 I admit that you do not care about the Constitution. You don't even seem to know what is written in it. You keep insisting that a crime must be committed to start impeachment. That is totally false. So either you do not know or you are simply lying.Either way, it is dangerous ignorance. This is written about in some detail within our Constitution. Impeachment is a political process. We believe you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. Read that as many times as you want. There is some debate about this, but I think the majority of legal opinion on this is clear. A sitting President must be impeached first. Then he can be tried. Those are the rules. If you don't like them, there are plenty of other nations to move to.
@RolandCuthbert so you need to be convicted to have committed a crime? Do you understand anything about law?
@Thisperson98 You keep repeating the same thing. Yes, I know something about the law. If I am charged with a crime, that does not mean I committed one. In actuality, you are not God. You might believe that you are. But that does not matter in this universe. We have a process for deciding guilt or innocence. That is our legal system. Again, if you do not like it, there are alternatives for you.It is believed that a sitting President cannot be tried in a criminal court. That is fact. It does not change for a Republican President or a Democratic one. Presidents are unique with this exemption. They must be impeached first. Then their guilt or innocence can be decided.
@RolandCuthbert and impeachment isn't a criminal court. It is like one but it isn't a court. So, I guess you still don't realize what you are talking.
@Thisperson98 This how ignorant you are. I just told you this. I told you that impeachment is not a criminal process. It is a political one. You denied this for over a dozen posts. So you are just spinning your wheels and it is time to wash my hands of you and your ignorance.Good luck young fella. Hopefully, one day you learn to think for yourself. The constitution lays all of this out in plain English.The President cannot be charged with a crime until he is impeached.End of line.
@RolandCuthbert so that is why the constitution says "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."Article III § 2 (3)
@RolandCuthbert impeachment means the filing of formal charges. I suggest start researching. The current legal theory supports my argument. I have given you many examples of evidence to prove my case.
@Thisperson98 No it doesn't. That is a lie.Think about this young fella. Can the President be impeached if he deemed mentally unfit? Is being mentally unstable a crime?:DHaha!!! You are not even trying anymore.
@RolandCuthbert nope, but you can't impeach a president for that. There is another way to remove the president in that case.
@Thisperson98 Of course you can. If the President is deemed crazy, Congress can start an impeachment process.Did you see the amendment that says, "if the President is unable to discharge the duties of the office"?:D
@RolandCuthbert nope, only way to remove a president for that reason is the 25th amendment.Here is some evidence to support that to be impeached you have to commit a crime. "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."Article III § 2 (3)
@RolandCuthbert and the 25th amendment isn't impeachment.
@RolandCuthbert @Thisperson98 Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice.HoR decides what is and isn't an impeachable offense. This is not cut and dry semantics we are dealing with, the impeachment articles are being filed against the most powerful man on the planet, the President of the United States. This is unprecedented.So I encourage the discourse but really nobody knows what is going to happen because we are literally witnessing history. Either he's impeached or isn't and the precedent is forever set for acceptable behavior of the POTUS.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!