The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TtomTerrific 200]

Just now, David Dennison said:

If only there was some way to look into that. Now who could do that?

General Barr... the bane of your existence. 

 

You think that you are pissed at him now. 

[David Dennison 18646]

Just now, TtomTerrific said:

General Barr... the bane of your existence. 

You think that you are pissed at him now. 

I'm not pissed. He's doing everything he can to get a Democrat elected next year.

[TtomTerrific 200]

yeah... ok.. gif. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I'm not pissed. He's doing everything he can to get a Democrat elected next year.

How can you be like this? How can you be so wrong about literally everything? I'm not disputing that maybe Barr is important to certain people , but this is an inside the beltway story with limited appeal outside of people who are already outraged. 

If you go to the mall, and survey people, the percentage of people who could even name the attorney general will be low single digits.

I admire your consistency though.

[David Dennison 18646]

Just now, TtomTerrific said:

yeah... ok.. gif. 

It's too bad the statute of limitations has run on Hillary.

That's a shame.

[henrygandorf 29174]

flipped by fox news earlier and caught this little exchange, which i found ironic and hilarious:

host 1 - so what does this mean now for the democrats?

host 2 - well this is a crushing defeat, and you hear what america is saying - it's over.  100% done, completely over.  this investigation has gone on for years, no collusion, no obstruction, the american people are sick of investigations, sick of witch hunts, they just want to move onto governing and legislation.

host 1 - so what's next?

host 2 - well i think it's time to investigate how this whole thing started, that's what america wants.

[David Dennison 18646]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

How can you be like this? How can you be so wrong about literally everything? I'm not disputing that maybe Barr is important to certain people , but this is an inside the beltway story with limited appeal outside of people who are already outraged. 

If you go to the mall, and survey people, the percentage of people who could even name the attorney general will be low single digits.

I admire your consistency though.

Then you have nothing to worry about. But a Democrat will be president again soon and you can go back to whining about lib tears or some shit.

[Eskimohorn 5610]

I would love it if people could start referring to TTomTeriffic as "TTom" or "TTTF" or "TerrificallyTom."  I get that he's more prolific and has been on this board longer than me, but calling him "Tom" gives me brief PTSD that I'm as stupid as his dumb fucking takes about everything.  

Shut the fuck up Tom! This doesn’t concern you, Tom. In fact, from now on, we’re gonna call your ass “MotherfuckinTtom!”

[Cairn Horn88 8162]

I have a feeling....this is not going to end well for Barr....or Trump...when the dust settles.  Just a feeling.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Turley's article is great.

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/05/01/barr-testimony-mueller-may-have-some-splainin-to-do/

Quote

Finally, Barr said that Mueller repeatedly told him and Rosenstein that his decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction was not due to the Office of Legal Counsel memos barring the indictment of a sitting president. That is also in direct contradiction with ongoing coverage. It also makes sense because, as I have written, there is nothing in those memos that even remotely suggests that a Special Counsel cannot reach a conclusion on criminal conduct.

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[David Dennison 18646]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Turley's article is great.

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/05/01/barr-testimony-mueller-may-have-some-splainin-to-do/

 

He should absolutely explain it in front of the House Judiciary Committee. I would say the Senate Judiciary Committee, too, but Lindsey Graham says he doesn't want to hear from him.

Oh well.

Edited May 2, 2019 by David Dennison

[SimonBolivar 10910]

52 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

yeah... ok.. gif.

 In creative writing, the ellipsis functions to indicate that the speaker has trailed off and left a sentence or thought unfinished. They lose their effectiveness when used too often.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Here’s some nightmare fuel for y’all.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13545]

3 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Turley's article is great.

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/05/01/barr-testimony-mueller-may-have-some-splainin-to-do/

 

Lol.

 

And Barr's got just the notes that he won't let us see to prove it. Sounds like Turley's really on to something here. Lindsey is just going to kitty pounce all over Mueller when he gets draaaaged in front of the Senate to do his splainin'.

 

You're a fucking moron.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Mo Horn 8807]

6 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

I have a feeling....this is not going to end well for Barr....or Trump...when the dust settles.  Just a feeling.

For over two years now we get one or two of these posts on every page. Not going to end well, it's all going to come out, sooner or later, etc. Yea no. The only thing thing that gets Trump out is the 2020 election or term limits in 2024... and then he may refuse to leave. Voters have to vote him out, or flip the Senate (not going to happen). He's untouchable. C'mon out to the ledge. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

9 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

For over two years now we get one or two of these posts on every page. Not going to end well, it's all going to come out, sooner or later, etc. Yea no. The only thing thing that gets Trump out is the 2020 election or term limits in 2024... and then he may refuse to leave. Voters have to vote him out, or flip the Senate (not going to happen). He's untouchable. C'mon out to the ledge. 

Like the Iraq War or Watergate, there might not be consequences for the architects responsible but the truth will out...eventually. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mo Horn 8807]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like the Iraq War, there might not be consequences for the architects responsible but the truth will out...eventually. 

Sure, but long after he's out of office. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

7 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

this seems smart. 

 

nevermind that no special prosecution EVER would have been allowed to investigate Hillary.. because.. you know. she and Holder were actually obstructing justice... but.. other than that..it is the exact same thing. 

 

stick to race baiting.. you suck at this. 

 

take the loss, pussy. 

Nevermind that Hillary's best friend, Jeff Sessions, told Jim Jordan in open session that there was nothing to prosecute Hillary on. 

[RomaVicta 29769]

8 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yeah, they're not lacking in impeachable offenses.   Just guts. 

I'll still say it's timing over public support. Having E. Warren making the case as part of her campaign is a nice way to make the arguments for impeachment outside of the House. I'm fining that they're giving it some time until the weight of Trump's action to stonewall and emerging evidence tips the scales. I think the leaders have a grasp of what is to come and how it will play.

For once, I think the Dem strategy is based on prudence rather than timidity. I'm betting against the odds, but I'm not worried yet.

[Tom 2959]

7 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

this seems smart. 

 

nevermind that no special prosecution EVER would have been allowed to investigate Hillary.. because.. you know. she and Holder were actually obstructing justice... but.. other than that..it is the exact same thing. 

 

stick to race baiting.. you suck at this. 

 

take the loss, pussy. 

 

See, now this is what I'm talking about.  

 

2019 Republicans:  No obstruction and no collusion.  Move on, it's over!

Also 2019 Republicans after several investigations of Hillary Clinton:  Lock her up!  Lock her up!  Lock her up!

[SubliminalHorn 6672]

7 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

How can you be like this? How can you be so wrong about literally everything? I'm not disputing that maybe Barr is important to certain people , but this is an inside the beltway story with limited appeal outside of people who are already outraged. 

If you go to the mall, and survey people, the percentage of people who could even name the attorney general will be low single digits.

I admire your consistency though.

So because people are morons, this isn’t important? 

[Brandywine 1312]

Man, I can’t wait to see the mini series on HBO on all this. I’m pretty sure they’ll do one, probably written by Danny Strong.

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Brandywine

[Mojo Hand 4580]

44 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'll still say it's timing over public support. Having E. Warren making the case as part of her campaign is a nice way to make the arguments for impeachment outside of the House. I'm fining that they're giving it some time until the weight of Trump's action to stonewall and emerging evidence tips the scales. I think the leaders have a grasp of what is to come and how it will play.

For once, I think the Dem strategy is based on prudence rather than timidity. I'm betting against the odds, but I'm not worried yet.

I hope you're right, but I think that the Dems have already wasted the opportunity to set the narrative.  They had one chance to tell the public what they thought the Mueller report meant, and for most it was "let's investigate further" and other mixed messages.  The right answer was "this is outrageous proof of corruption and criminality by the president and we are launching impeachment hearings immediately."  They could back off later, but that initial response is critical to communicating the big takeaway to a public that will largely not read the report. If the situations were reversed, Republicans would have done exactly that to President Hillary.  Hell, they are practically doing that now, and she's a private citizen who wasn't even implicated in any way by the Mueller report. 

I predicted last week that the Dems' weak response would lead to a Trump bump in the polls, and I saw yesterday that CNN has Trump hitting his highest approval since April 2017.   That should not be happening the week after such damning evidence was released, and it speaks to the Dems' political malpractice, IMO. 

[Goredho 17341]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Here’s some nightmare fuel for y’all.
 

My liver just recoiled in fear of being eaten with fava beans and a nice chianti.

[TtomTerrific 200]

9 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Good point, the FBI didn’t investigate  Hillary at all.  Oops

moron.  

not what I said. 

Of course Obama's, Holder's and Lynch's Justice Department "investigated" Hillary...they allowed for the destruction of evidence, wholesale, obstructing both hers and Lerner's "investigations" ....there is NO WAY that anyone in that administration would have appointed a "special prosecutor" to look into any of this, Holder ignored Congressional subpoena completely and you were right here applauding all of it and calling those who didn't approve racists.

[wildcat09 29213]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I hope you're right, but I think that the Dems have already wasted the opportunity to set the narrative.  They had one chance to tell the public what they thought the Mueller report meant, and for most it was "let's investigate further" and other mixed messages.  The right answer was "this is outrageous proof of corruption and criminality by the president and we are launching impeachment hearings immediately."  They could back off later, but that initial response is critical to communicating the big takeaway to a public that will largely not read the report. If the situations were reversed, Republicans would have done exactly that to President Hillary.  Hell, they are practically doing that now, and she's a private citizen who wasn't even implicated in any way by the Mueller report. 

 I predicted last week that the Dems' weak response would lead to a Trump bump in the polls, and I saw yesterday that CNN has Trump hitting his highest approval since April 2017.   That should not be happening the week after such damning evidence was released, and it speaks to the Dems' political malpractice, IMO. 

Fucking this. The Democratic party, in 2019, still doesn't understand that the public narratives don't just arise out of thin air. They're shaped by how the issues are presented to the public by the parties and the media (and the media's coverage is shaped by what the parties and all the pundits that function as part of the parties say). And it doesn't take a genius to frame a story, especially not a story like this. Hell, the GOP is full of Louis Gohmerts and they know how to do it and have been doing it for decades. And the Dems' response, every single goddamned time, comes from an abject fear that the public will crush them if they appear to actually want to do something about anything.

 

[SimonBolivar 10910]

27 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

not what I said. 

Of course Obama's, Holder's and Lynch's Justice Department "investigated" Hillary...they allowed for the destruction of evidence, wholesale, obstructing both hers and Lerner's "investigations" ....there is NO WAY that anyone in that administration would have appointed a "special prosecutor" to look into any of this, Holder ignored Congressional subpoena completely and you were right here applauding all of it and calling those who didn't approve racists.

 

What is your address? I'll ship it to you free of charge. 

I know that nobody likes a grammar Nazi, but you can't make an intelligent argument with that writing style. It's too far off the grid to pass by unnoticed.

[David Dennison 18646]

44 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

not what I said. 

Of course Obama's, Holder's and Lynch's Justice Department "investigated" Hillary...they allowed for the destruction of evidence, wholesale, obstructing both hers and Lerner's "investigations" ....there is NO WAY that anyone in that administration would have appointed a "special prosecutor" to look into any of this, Holder ignored Congressional subpoena completely and you were right here applauding all of it and calling those who didn't approve racists.

Obama hasn't been president for over two years.

Why didn't Trump's DOJ investigate Hillary and bring charges before the statutes of limitations ran? Why no special counsel?

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by David Dennison

[GRHorn 105]

12 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't think people are worked up about today because it cracked the mueller report wide open or anything.  i think people are just in disbelief (again) that someone who was once hoped to be neutral has been warped into yet another stooge for this president-turned-king who seems to be able to continually gangster his way around the constitution.

most people grow up in america thinking, "well it can't ever get that bad, the way the govt is set up, it'll work itself out and we have nothing to fear."  we've never seen anyone ever push back this hard on the system, and somehow it's fucking working.

so no, today wasn't some bombshell.  just another in a long line of disappointing and embarrassing days for our country.  at least nixon had shame, and skulked away quietly.  ain't gonna happen with this one. 

How did he “gangster his way around the Constitution”?

 

[David Dennison 18646]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

How did he “gangster his way around the Constitution”?

The national emergency on the border is a pretty glaring example.

[GRHorn 105]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The national emergency on the border is a pretty glaring example.

And it’s being challenged in the Courts, correct?  Has anything actually happened towards him accomplishing his goal? No. 

[David Dennison 18646]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

And it’s being challenged in the Courts, correct?  Has anything actually happened towards him accomplishing his goal? No. 

So it doesn't count if he's incompetent?

Got it.

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

And it’s being challenged in the Courts, correct?  Has anything actually happened towards him accomplishing his goal? No. 

A multi million dollar contract was awarded and other military projects are going unfunded as a result 

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

Nadler was correct this morning. If Congress doesn’t enforce its subpoenas, including holding the AG in contempt of Congress, then they are at risk of forever abdicating their oversight role and their position as a co-equal branch of government. 

Frankly, that ship probably already sailed 

[David Dennison 18646]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Nadler was correct this morning. If Congress doesn’t enforce its subpoenas, including holding the AG in contempt of Congress, then they are at risk of forever abdicating their oversight role and their position as a co-equal branch of government. 

Frankly, that ship probably already sailed 

There's also the fact that they can't really enforce them. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

16 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

How did he “gangster his way around the Constitution”?

for the sake of argument, let's use joe pesci's character (nicki) in casino as the example.  he was a big sports bettor.  when he won, he would go collect.  when he lost, he would tell the bookies to go fuck themselves.  what were they gonna do, muscle nicki?  nicki was the muscle.  nicki was able to do whatever he wanted outside the law, and there were no consequences.

presidents for a century have turned over their tax returns.  trump, can you do this please?  yeah, i will when i feel like it.  he still hasn't.  when he gets asked, he basically tells congress to go fuck themselves.  when they subpoena the banks, he sues the banks.  he pushes back and does whatever he wants and strong-arms everyone and gets away with it.

when congress is investigating obstruction, he sues and fights every subpoena.  he tells anyone and everyone on his side (even ex-employees) not to go testify.  "we're gonna fight every subpoena."  congress exists as a check on the executive branch, and he is completely circumventing that structure to do whatever he wants with no check - sounds pretty much like a gangster operating outside the law to me.

he wants all his people to fall in line and be puppets for him, much like a mafia boss.  when they don't, they get "whacked" (fired).  close to 500 people have been fired/quit/forced to quit in 2.5 years.  he threatens, he coerces, he bribes, he leans on people - until he gets what he wants.  it's the same shit he's been doing in the real estate business in new york for decades, but there it's sort of expected, if not completely "legal" - at least it's sorta part of the process.  not in washington. 

when the president appoints cabinet posts or other high offices in his administration, they are supposed to be confirmed by one of the other branches.  he makes them all "acting" so they don't need to ever get confirmed.  again, going around the process set up by either the constitution or whatever documents are in place to keep a check on the executive.  doing whatever he needs to do to keep everyone in line, but not subject to any oversight.

i could go on, but i don't think i should have to.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/paperback-nonfiction/

NYT Best seller's list:  #1 The Mueller Report, for just $9.95!  You can get a digital version if you want for your Kindle for just $7.99!

 

 

 

It's literally free a thousand different places to download.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

for the sake of argument, let's use joe pesci's character (nicki) in casino as the example.  he was a big sports bettor.  when he won, he would go collect.  when he lost, he would tell the bookies to go fuck themselves.  what were they gonna do, muscle nicki?  nicki was the muscle.  nicki was able to do whatever he wanted outside the law, and there were no consequences.

 presidents for a century have turned over their tax returns.  trump, can you do this please?  yeah, i will when i feel like it.  he still hasn't.  when he gets asked, he basically tells congress to go fuck themselves.  when they subpoena the banks, he sues the banks.  he pushes back and does whatever he wants and strong-arms everyone and gets away with it.

when congress is investigating obstruction, he sues and fights every subpoena.  he tells anyone and everyone on his side (even ex-employees) not to go testify.  "we're gonna fight every subpoena."  congress exists as a check on the executive branch, and he is completely circumventing that structure to do whatever he wants with no check - sounds pretty much like a gangster operating outside the law to me.

he wants all his people to fall in line and be puppets for him, much like a mafia boss.  when they don't, they get "whacked" (fired).  close to 500 people have been fired/quit/forced to quit in 2.5 years.  he threatens, he coerces, he bribes, he leans on people - until he gets what he wants.  it's the same shit he's been doing in the real estate business in new york for decades, but there it's sort of expected, if not completely "legal" - at least it's sorta part of the process.  not in washington. 

when the president appoints cabinet posts or other high offices in his administration, they are supposed to be confirmed by one of the other branches.  he makes them all "acting" so they don't need to ever get confirmed.  again, going around the process set up by either the constitution or whatever documents are in place to keep a check on the executive.  doing whatever he needs to do to keep everyone in line, but not subject to any oversight.

i could go on, but i don't think i should have to.

 

He floods the zone with bad acts, and we have a slow moving contemplative court system and a slow moving (something) congress.  Our system wasn't designed for bad act overload from one person.  You simply can't stop them all.

[HenryJames 65884]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

for the sake of argument, let's use joe pesci's character (nicki) in casino as the example.  he was a big sports bettor.  when he won, he would go collect.  when he lost, he would tell the bookies to go fuck themselves.  what were they gonna do, muscle nicki?  nicki was the muscle.  nicki was able to do whatever he wanted outside the law, and there were no consequences.

presidents for a century have turned over their tax returns.  trump, can you do this please?  yeah, i will when i feel like it.  he still hasn't.  when he gets asked, he basically tells congress to go fuck themselves.  when they subpoena the banks, he sues the banks.  he pushes back and does whatever he wants and strong-arms everyone and gets away with it.

when congress is investigating obstruction, he sues and fights every subpoena.  he tells anyone and everyone on his side (even ex-employees) not to go testify.  "we're gonna fight every subpoena."  congress exists as a check on the executive branch, and he is completely circumventing that structure to do whatever he wants with no check - sounds pretty much like a gangster operating outside the law to me.

he wants all his people to fall in line and be puppets for him, much like a mafia boss.  when they don't, they get "whacked" (fired).  close to 500 people have been fired/quit/forced to quit in 2.5 years.  he threatens, he coerces, he bribes, he leans on people - until he gets what he wants.  it's the same shit he's been doing in the real estate business in new york for decades, but there it's sort of expected, if not completely "legal" - at least it's sorta part of the process.  not in washington. 

when the president appoints cabinet posts or other high offices in his administration, they are supposed to be confirmed by one of the other branches.  he makes them all "acting" so they don't need to ever get confirmed.  again, going around the process set up by either the constitution or whatever documents are in place to keep a check on the executive.  doing whatever he needs to do to keep everyone in line, but not subject to any oversight.

i could go on, but i don't think i should have to.

 

This.

It's honestly sad how our system of government was so dependent on lawmakers conforming to established norms of behavior.

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's also the fact that they can't really enforce them. 

We’ll see. An initial preliminary injunction hearing on some banking subpoenas is set for I think May 20. 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

for the sake of argument, let's use joe pesci's character (nicki) in casino as the example.  he was a big sports bettor.  when he won, he would go collect.  when he lost, he would tell the bookies to go fuck themselves.  what were they gonna do, muscle nicki?  nicki was the muscle.  nicki was able to do whatever he wanted outside the law, and there were no consequences.

presidents for a century have turned over their tax returns.  trump, can you do this please?  yeah, i will when i feel like it.  he still hasn't.  when he gets asked, he basically tells congress to go fuck themselves.  when they subpoena the banks, he sues the banks.  he pushes back and does whatever he wants and strong-arms everyone and gets away with it.

when congress is investigating obstruction, he sues and fights every subpoena.  he tells anyone and everyone on his side (even ex-employees) not to go testify.  "we're gonna fight every subpoena."  congress exists as a check on the executive branch, and he is completely circumventing that structure to do whatever he wants with no check - sounds pretty much like a gangster operating outside the law to me.

he wants all his people to fall in line and be puppets for him, much like a mafia boss.  when they don't, they get "whacked" (fired).  close to 500 people have been fired/quit/forced to quit in 2.5 years.  he threatens, he coerces, he bribes, he leans on people - until he gets what he wants.  it's the same shit he's been doing in the real estate business in new york for decades, but there it's sort of expected, if not completely "legal" - at least it's sorta part of the process.  not in washington. 

when the president appoints cabinet posts or other high offices in his administration, they are supposed to be confirmed by one of the other branches.  he makes them all "acting" so they don't need to ever get confirmed.  again, going around the process set up by either the constitution or whatever documents are in place to keep a check on the executive.  doing whatever he needs to do to keep everyone in line, but not subject to any oversight.

i could go on, but i don't think i should have to.

 

You're wasting your time. He'll just respond with another question or non sequitur. It's how he operates, you have to realize you're speaking to someone with both the intellectual curiosity and quotient of a wooden spoon.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Brian Fantana

[GRHorn 105]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So it doesn't count if he's incompetent?

Got it.

This is my point.

“He’s shattering norms! Unprecedented! He must be stopped!”

He is being stopped by the system as it’s been established for years. It’s working. He hasn’t gangstered his way around the constitution. 

He’s the maniacal authoritarian who’s on the verge of upending the country, that is also under threat of impeachment and opposed constantly by 90% of the media in this country. It’s nonsense. 

[David Dennison 18646]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

We’ll see. An initial preliminary injunction hearing on some banking subpoenas is set for I think May 20. 

But how does Congress actually enforce a subpoena against the Executive Branch? 

[David Dennison 18646]

Just now, GRHorn said:

This is my point.

“He’s shattering norms! Unprecedented! He must be stopped!”

He is being stopped by the system as it’s been established for years. It’s working. He hasn’t gangstered his way around the constitution. 

He’s the maniacal authoritarian who’s on the verge of upending the country, that is also under threat of impeachment and opposed constantly by 90% of the media in this country. It’s nonsense. 

So all of those concentration camps at the border and family separation are just figments of our imagination? 

[GRHorn 105]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're wasting your time. He'll just respond with another question or non sequitur. It's how he operates, you have to realize you're speaking to someone with both the intellectual curiosity and quotient of a wooden spoon.

His attempts at exerting executive power have been challenged the entire way. He hasn’t upset any of the Constitutional order. 

[HornPhD 1364]

1 hour ago, TtomTerrific said:

not what I said. 

Of course Obama's, Holder's and Lynch's Justice Department "investigated" Hillary...they allowed for the destruction of evidence, wholesale, obstructing both hers and Lerner's "investigations" ....there is NO WAY that anyone in that administration would have appointed a "special prosecutor" to look into any of this, Holder ignored Congressional subpoena completely and you were right here applauding all of it and calling those who didn't approve racists.

How many investigations of Hillary Clinton were conducted by Congress during Trump's 1st two years? You know, when the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.

[GRHorn 105]

Just now, David Dennison said:

So all of those concentration camps at the border and family separation are just figments of our imagination? 

My admittedly limited understanding of that is that he’s essentially enforcing the law in a more strict manner than has been in the past, but is within the letter of the laws on the books.

[David Dennison 18646]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

His attempts at exerting executive power have been challenged the entire way. He hasn’t upset any of the Constitutional order. 

I was told by Fox News that Barack Obama was a threat to our democracy when he did it.

Was Fox News lying to me?

[SquishMitten 10397]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

 

For once, I think the Dem strategy is based on prudence rather than timidity. I'm betting against the odds, but I'm not worried yet.

Think it’s a little of both. The party as a whole can’t stay on topic or create a unified narrative. Unlike the Rs, there are many factions wanting to go in different directions so it’s hard for the best idea to gain traction. What it ultimately leads to is an all-or-nothing, headline grabber that has burned them repeatedly. Kavanaugh was a good example. There were very legitimate, provable reasons he was unfit for the bench, but the Ds couldn’t unite on that, instead letting the rape/assault narrative take hold. When that ultimately fizzled, their wad was blown and they lost. Same with the Mueller report. They let the narrative of collusion/Russian-asset take center stage. When that wasn’t absolutely proven, their wad was blown and they’re losing. If they let impeachment take hold (and then ultimately fail in the Senate), their final wad will be blown, and Trump will be set up really well for re-election. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

His attempts at exerting executive power have been challenged the entire way. He hasn’t upset any of the Constitutional order. 

so you've responded 3x since i answered your question, and i've heard nothing in response.

he's doing whatever he wants because either the system is too flawed or people are too meek to challenge him - just like a fucking gangster.

gangsters get away with it.  who's gonna stop em?  cops?  you pay off the cops.  you lean on them.  you bend them to your will.  

was i the only one who watched the hearings yesterday?

Edited May 2, 2019 by henrygandorf
grammars