constitutional crisis ?

[bellisarius]

Let's run with your premise re. scrutiny. Why isn't HRC under an investigative microscope?

 

[cleaver]

to what point... at this point?

she has neither position, nor power, nor legitimate influence over any electorate.
her alleged criminality is in no way equivalent to what is at hand.

as a personality - without office or any real avenue to attain one now,
what threat (real or imagined) does hrc have to our nation.

i'm no fan of hers.
cannot imagine defending/prosecuting her without more specifics?

the emails?
yeah, ok.
put her in jail.
to what end?

for commissioning steele?
that issue is already on the greater agenda...

for fucking bill?
who apparently didn't?

i'm not sure what you are asking.
while i could certainly give her credit for being formidable and talented,
i never found her remotely compelling enough to support
- even with the prospect of trump...

there is a supertanker full of disdain out there for hrc in certain quarters
- not all of it along party lines -
but going after this nearly dead horse now
is neither topically relevant
nor truly of value
except as blood-sport on a dude ranch safari.

 

[bellisarius]

But the investigation of Trump started during the campaign. Shouldn't the same have happened with HRC?

 

[icanhelp1]

thank you.
you offer a hand full
that does go to the issue on the table.

association is not - prima facie - evidence of collusion/complicity.
granted.

association with a foreign adversary is not evidence of collusion/complicity.

when person#1 and/or person#2 - in what essentially was a binary presidential election - has demonstrable association with said adversary,
my contention remains that the nature of that association
can and should be under scrutiny. yours is otherwise.

if that be the crux of this constitutional crisis - let it be hashed.

as a political position, i believe it is not as favorable to your ultimate political intention; retention of the powers of the office through trump, as other options...

as political smoke?
misdirection seems to have great legs these days.
we shall see.

the hyperbole that somehow the democrat(ic) house is criminal for being tenacious?

again... run with that.

the current constitutional conundrum is over what's not been made available.

if there is nothing there,
let an unfettered mueller testify so.

it was not only the republican leadership that paid for the investigation
that did - despite your misgivings as to the origins - transpire.

then, if the fallout is not favorable to the president, roll out the political apparatus
to undermine the special counsel's credibility.

there is an easy way to put end to this - get on to governance.

if though...
and i am certainly willing to appreciate the political expediency of it,
the play is to misdirect,
obfuscate...
stonewall...

carny show...

as the other hand is doing the things it is doing...

the barnum-esque bamboozle
ego based exercise of power is...

truly remarkable

and antithetical to...
the intent of republican government
or ethical governance.

perhaps just one ego-inflated head should roll.

I never once implied the house was acting criminally. All I implied is that the house is overreaching it's implied constitutional mandate of oversight and legislation.

You're a Trump hater disguised as a debater. I'm OK with that! What I'm not OK with is to overlook lawful procedures and investigative protocol. Not to recognize political and criminal malfeasance by the other political opponent just minimizes your argument. Your trying to convince me that I'm minimizing the report itself. By itself as a stand alone document it's very comprehensive but when you put the report in context within the purview of the department of justice it falls flat on it's face.

You gloss over the three stages of this attempted coup.

1. Clinton dossier and FISA corruption.

2. Surveillance investigation based on illegal protocol

3. Mueller report, a legal document filled with innuendo and opinion.

Move on to governing and clean the swamp!

We agree to disagree.

 

[cleaver]

refresh my memory please...
did not "the liar, comey" hold a press conference
some 10 days before the election?

were not the 'lost' emails - amongst other issues -
in the scrutiny of an fbi
under then democrat(ic) stewardship?

the issues, though similar, are still not equivalent.

 

[bellisarius]

Oh, I've written off the email issue. I think Comey may have closed that door forever. No, not the emails, The Clinton Foundation, and the Russian Uranium sell out. When it comes to doing business with the Russians Hillary has a lot more to account for than Trump.

 

[phrodeau]

But the investigation of Trump started during the campaign. Shouldn't the same have happened with HRC?

What fresh bullshit is this?

Trump wasn’t being investigated during his campaign. Russian meddling was being investigated, and members of the Trump campaign were involved, because they were talking to the Russians who were allegedly meddling. There’s nothing to suggest that Trump himself was. His tweet about “tapps” was proven false.

 

[Rightguide]

What fresh bullshit is this?

Trump wasn’t being investigated during his campaign. Russian meddling was being investigated, and members of the Trump campaign were involved, because they were talking to the Russians who were allegedly meddling. There’s nothing to suggest that Trump himself was. His tweet about “tapps” was proven false.

Careful there, you better study up on the facts first.

 

[cleaver]

I never once implied the house was acting criminally. All I implied is that the house is overreaching it's implied constitutional mandate of oversight and legislation.

You're a Trump hater disguised as a debater. I'm OK with that! What I'm not OK with is to overlook lawful procedures and investigative protocol. Not to recognize political and criminal malfeasance by the other political opponent just minimizes your argument. Your trying to convince me that I'm minimizing the report itself. By itself as a stand alone document it's very comprehensive but when you put the report in context within the purview of the department of justice it falls flat on it's face.

You gloss over the three stages of this attempted coup.

1. Clinton dossier and FISA corruption.

2. Surveillance investigation based on illegal protocol

3. Mueller report, a legal document filled with innuendo and opinion.

Move on to governing and clean the swamp!

We agree to disagree.

i am not a trump hater,
though i am no fan.
color me as you will.

my criminality response was to the post previous to yours.

i am interested in the truth that seems hopelessly obscured by
political posturing,
misdirected message and process
and yes....
if it is there, malfeasance.

my op did not pose a foregone conclusion,
but rather an open question.

if by the "clinton dossier" you mean the steele dossier?
i am of the mind that as then vetted by the fbi, there was enough corroboration from other sources to parts of it to not dismiss it out of hand.
should it have been in the mix... ? i don't know.

of the various fisa actions?
in the case of papadopoulos,
the intelligence that a campaign operative was connected to russian govt officials,
came not from steele, but an australian diplomat...
the fbi and the court found action to be appropriate.
was this, in hindsight, legal-ethical?
i have no answer.
although, in the course of its investigation, popodoulos lied to agents...
a crime...
and plead so to it.

if you are suggesting that the fisa court itself was co-opted...?
show me.
show the electorate.

surveillance based only on illegal protocol....
yeah.
until proven beyond conjecture...
i'm unsure what you mean here.
i've applied specifics to your previous unspecific points...
give me specifics to discuss.

point 3: "mueller report, a legal document filled with innuendo and opinion."?
i can respect your position on this
while finding it unimpressively dismissive.

the report exists,
found no actionable complicity between the campaign and russia re; the 2016 election
and suggests 10 points upon which obstruction may have occurred.

so?

the current crisis/non crisis hinges upon part 2 of the report (and whatever else may be redacted);
which to my eyes reads as issues subject (in great part) to congressional oversight.

i may indeed be wrong - am willing to be educated...
let the discourse continue.

 

[cleaver]

Oh, I've written off the email issue. I think Comey may have closed that door forever. No, not the emails, The Clinton Foundation, and the Russian Uranium sell out. When it comes to doing business with the Russians Hillary has a lot more to account for than Trump.

yeah.
that is ugly.
i cannot in good conscience
go to bat for the foundation.

the clintons are disturbing in many ways...
and in truth,
remarkable in much the same ways i find trump.

 

[BotanyBoy]

umm. trying to keep Mueller and MGahn from testifying.. One of the functions of congress is oversight of the executive. You can't very well do that if the President stymies you at every turn, using this fictitious notion of "executive prilvidge"--show me where that clause is in the Constitution.

Executive privilege isn't fictitious. '

It's not a clause it's an inherent part of being the head of the executive branch.

Botany Boy has always believed in the theory of a unitary authoritarian head of state, as long as the officeholder meets certain credentials (white, Republican, etc).

Rob lies again....he just can't make an honest post.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yeah, because Hillary's never been investigated before.

Benghazi, Whitewater, emails, never been investigated, not once.

Let's run with your premise re. scrutiny. Why isn't HRC under an investigative microscope?

 

[Vetteman]

Executive privilege isn't fictitious. '

It's not a clause it's an inherent part of being the head of the executive branch.



Rob lies again....he just can't make an honest post.

Liberal shitheads can't wrap their heads around the fact that Trump just wants to keep this secret and that it also totally exonerates him.

 

[Luk]

Liberal shitheads can't wrap their heads around the fact that Trump just wants to keep this secret and that it also totally exonerates him.

Hey, Vetteman... When you challenged me to a fight and then pussed out, what were you so afraid of?

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Hey, Vetteman... When you challenged me to a fight and then pussed out, what were you so afraid of?

Hey disgustipated. Talking to your alts again?

 

[Luk]

It really is a When Luk says jump, trolls say, "How high, Sir?!" situation.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

It really is a When Luk says jump, trolls say, "How high, Sir?!" situation.

Is that the Royal "When"? Or do you always throw random capitals in random words?

 

[Rightguide]

Hey disgustipated. Talking to your alts again?

I'm glad Vetteman finally came back. I was getting tired of being accused of being him.

 

[KeithD]

Liberal shitheads can't wrap their heads around the fact that Trump just wants to keep this secret and that it also totally exonerates him.

Of course liberals can't get their heads around that--because it's totally laughable. The old fraud fooled you and owns you. You've become a contortionist and fool for a clownish huckster. Congrats or something.

 

[Luk]

I'm glad Vetteman finally came back. I was getting tired of being accused of being him.

Sorry, tubby bitch. You done fucked up again last night and got heated when Vetteman posted. There's no coming back from that, vettebirther.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

I'm glad Vetteman finally came back. I was getting tired of being accused of being him.

It's another luke troll alt.

 

[Rightguide]

It's another luke troll alt.

Oh, sorry.

 

[phrodeau]

Careful there, you better study up on the facts first.

Facts bite you in the ass all the time, and you still don’t know what they are.

 

[KeithD]

Facts bite you in the ass all the time, and you still don’t know what they are.

But he certainly knows how to be flim flammed by the con man and still come out supporting him. What an blooming idiot.

 

[Rightguide]

Facts bite you in the ass all the time, and you still don’t know what they are.

Trump's campaign was being surveilled in early 2016, What do you think caused NSA Director, Admiral Rogers, to travel on Nov. 17, 2016 to meet President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team at Trump Tower? Why do you think that evening the Trump team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey? What do you think would cause virtually every FBI and NSD official with material involvement in the original Carter Page FISA application to be later removed in one fashion or another?

You see these are things I and many others know, that you don't know because you listen to the Democrat propaganda arms at CNN and MSNBC. Admiral Rogers is a national hero who Clapper and Brennan both tried to get fired for uncovering and reporting to the FISC a massive illegal effort by the Obama administration officials to unmask American citizens and spy on them in order to damage the Republican party over a period of four years running. Yes you're going to hear about this when the IG report and the Huber findings are revealed in the coming weeks not months.