The Mueller Report

[Mountain Man]

And I don't know what to make of people that refuse to see what is happening over the long term because of opportunistic power grabs by both parties. The trend in at least the last 3 presidencies is to give the president more power because it is easier to accomplish what they want to accomplish if 'their guy' has more power. But this continued progression towards enhanced presidential power is very, very dangerous. Yes it can be easier to get what that party wants done, but it also brings us closer and closer to the potential for a power grab by a single individual - the sort of individual Trump is in fact. Whether or not that transfer of power is sufficient to allow for that today, it is still mind boggling to see how many people simply do not understand why there are 3 branches of government and why the power MUST be distributed evenly across them. Trump is especially bad at ABUSING his power, and so that should be raising red flags. But no, the blinders to history and of human nature are just pressed more securely over the eyes as you refuse to recognize the danger to the republic of a man like Trump if too much power is granted to the presidency.

But make not mistake - trump is not the focus here. The focus is the continued march towards more presidential power that could one day allow for someone like Trump to get the power they crave.


Jim

What "power grab" are you accusing Trump of reaching for? You're talking in broad terms, as if everybody can peer into your muddled mind and know exactly what you're talking about, but for those of us who lack such supernatural powers, a little clarification would be appreciated.

[oxmixmudd]

What "power grab" are you accusing Trump of reaching for? You're talking in broad terms, as if everybody can peer into your muddled mind and know exactly what you're talking about, but for those of us who lack such supernatural powers, a little clarification would be appreciated.

You will simply deny that the power grabs in place exist. One would be the appointment of an AG that is willing to compromise principle and work solely for the president and not the US itself, enabling Trump to violate his vow to ensure the laws are enforced as they regard himself. The second is the willing enlistment or cooperation with the Russians during the election for which he has been given a pass by his base and by this AG. You hide behind 'he broke no laws', but anyone that accepts help to win a campaign from a hostile foreign power is (1) a traitor (2) compromised by that power. And it doesn't matter if that help actually resulted in his win or not. And there is no doubt his campaign cooperated with them - albeit apparently (as far as we know to this point) without breaking the law. Like it or not, this president was elected with a minority popular vote AND the explicit help of a hostile foreign power.

Again - you are being opportunistic rather than principled. The violation of principles like these is BAD for our country. It doesn't matter if you think, "well it worked out for the best". The same principles violated by others could result in the destruction of our republic! And accepting their violation today for Trump is paving the way for much worse later. And Trump accepting them/committing them should be inexcusable - no matter what your political views are.


Jim

[Sparko]

Next, they'll be bringing in the

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36791[/ATTACH]

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

[Mountain Man]

One would be the appointment of an AG that is willing to compromise principle and work solely for the president and not the US itself, enabling Trump to violate his vow to ensure the laws are enforced as they regard himself.

Mueller found no evidence that any laws were broken. What was Barr supposed to do, indict Trump anyway? This isn't a power grab, it's just a common sense application of the law.

The second is the willing enlistment or cooperation with the Russians during the election for which he has been given a pass by his base and by this AG. [...] And there is no doubt his campaign cooperated with them - albeit apparently (as far as we know to this point) without breaking the law.

Mueller found no evidence that any US citizen conspired or coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election, and last I checked, Donald Trump is a US citizen. Sorry, but even your "non-criminal collusion" narrative was debunked by Mueller himself.

Again - you are being opportunistic rather than principled. The violation of principles like these is BAD for our country. It doesn't matter if you think, "well it worked out for the best". The same principles violated by others could result in the destruction of our republic! And accepting their violation today for Trump is paving the way for much worse later. And Trump accepting them/committing them should be inexcusable - no matter what your political views are.

Your rants are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality to the point that I must admit to some difficulty in how I should respond. Like Charles Babbage famously said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

[Cow Poke]

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody does.

[oxmixmudd]

Mueller found no evidence that any laws were broken. What was Barr supposed to do, indict Trump anyway? This isn't a power grab, it's just a common sense application of the law.


Mueller found no evidence that any US citizen conspired or coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election, and last I checked, Donald Trump is a US citizen. Sorry, but even your "non-criminal collusion" narrative was debunked by Mueller himself.


Your rants are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality to the point that I must admit to some difficulty in how I should respond. Like Charles Babbage famously said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Gaslight much

Jim

[Sparko]

Nobody does.

[Bill the Cat]

Barr asked Sen. Harris “on what basis” he should recuse himself from the investigations.

“Conflict of interest, clear conflict of interest,”
“What’s my conflict of interest?” Barr asked.
“I think the American public has seen quite well that you are biased in this situation and you’ve not been objective and that would arguably be the conflict of interest,” (Emphasis mine)

Yet another blowhard who wrote checks she couldn't back up. The press is acting like she schooled Barr. She didn't. He basically told her repeatedly that she has no idea what an AG is supposed to do. And then there's this piece of joy...


Harris: “Did you consult with DOJ ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation that subject of which he’s also a witness?"

Rosenstein was a member of the team for 2 years, long before Barr was confirmed, and never ONCE was his participation challenged by Congress, or Harris specifically, until the investigation concluded in a way she didn't like.

[Mountain Man]

Gaslight much

Your vacuous rejoinder and inability to address the facts as presented is noted.

[Mountain Man]

Barr asked Sen. Harris “on what basis” he should recuse himself from the investigations.

“Conflict of interest, clear conflict of interest,”
“What’s my conflict of interest?” Barr asked.
“I think the American public has seen quite well that you are biased in this situation and you’ve not been objective and that would arguably be the conflict of interest,” (Emphasis mine)

Yet another blowhard who wrote checks she couldn't back up. The press is acting like she schooled Barr. She didn't. He basically told her repeatedly that she has no idea what an AG is supposed to do. And then there's this piece of joy...


Harris: “Did you consult with DOJ ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation that subject of which he’s also a witness?"

Rosenstein was a member of the team for 2 years, long before Barr was confirmed, and never ONCE was his participation challenged by Congress, or Harris specifically, until the investigation concluded in a way she didn't like.

Yes, there were many moments like that throughout the hearing, where the staggering ignorance and idiocy of the Democrats was put on display for all to see.

[Mountain Man]

democrats_barr_impeach.jpg

[Sparko]

Barr asked Sen. Harris “on what basis” he should recuse himself from the investigations.

“Conflict of interest, clear conflict of interest,”
“What’s my conflict of interest?” Barr asked.
“I think the American public has seen quite well that you are biased in this situation and you’ve not been objective and that would arguably be the conflict of interest,” (Emphasis mine)

Then the entirety of the democratic senators should recuse themselves for conflict of interest. Their bias is unabashed. Even when the investigation proved otherwise they can't let it go. They started to attack the very people they put in charge of the investigation. They were not interested in the truth, but in just getting a big enough bat to knock Trump out of office. If that isn't bias I don't know what is.

[Cow Poke]

Then the entirety of the democratic senators should recuse themselves for conflict of interest. Their bias is unabashed. Even when the investigation proved otherwise they can't let it go. They started to attack the very people they put in charge of the investigation. They were not interested in the truth, but in just getting a big enough bat to knock Trump out of office. If that isn't bias I don't know what is.

As one observer put it - "they wanted an outcome, not an investigation".

[oxmixmudd]

Your vacuous rejoinder and inability to address the facts as presented is noted.

Your last paragraph was all I was responding to, where you try to imply I am somehow disconnected from reality, which is your 'go to' implication when you can't find anything meaningful to say in response. It's formal name is 'gaslighting'.

As for your other 'facts', I have already addressed them multiple times, and your response has been to simply ignore my responses and repeat them again and again and again ... as if they have meaning, and as if no response had been given. In fact, the post I made which you responded to in fact also addressed them directly, and yet what do you do? Just repeat your talking points again mindlessly, as if they have meaning.



Jim

[Mountain Man]

Your last paragraph was all I was responding to...

Presumably because you couldn't convincingly respond to the rest.

Tell me, if Mueller's report is as damning as you and the Democrats claim it is then why are they bothering with the theatrics of questioning Barr instead of immediately filing for impeachment with Mueller's report as their key piece of evidence? Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious, don't you?