Presidential power

[RiverDog]

Keep posting polls. They are more and more irrelevant in today's political environment. Don't believe me, just check out the latest election in Australia in case you think the 2016 election was a fluke.

Polling has changed, that's for sure. It used to be in the 50's and 60's that a pollster could depend on everyone they called to answer the phone and give an honest answer. Now simple random calling is biased as there may be a certain type of person that will answer the phone and chirp like a canary vs. someone like me that won't give them the time of day if I were to answer at all.

But they did nail the nationwide 2016 election in that the polls right before the election showed HRC with a 2-3% point lead, and that's exactly the percentage she won the popular vote by, so I wouldn't say that they are irrelevant, just more challenging. The absurdity in the 2016 elections was these idiots that established winning percentages for HRC at 80-90%. I can't understand how they were able to manipulate a 2-3% point lead that was within the margin for error into such high winning percentages.

[idhawkman]

Polling has changed, that's for sure. It used to be in the 50's and 60's that a pollster could depend on everyone they called to answer the phone and give an honest answer. Now simple random calling is biased as there may be a certain type of person that will answer the phone and chirp like a canary vs. someone like me that won't give them the time of day if I were to answer at all.

But they did nail the nationwide 2016 election in that the polls right before the election showed HRC with a 2-3% point lead, and that's exactly the percentage she won the popular vote by, so I wouldn't say that they are irrelevant, just more challenging. The absurdity in the 2016 elections was these idiots that established winning percentages for HRC at 80-90%. I can't understand how they were able to manipulate a 2-3% point lead that was within the margin for error into such high winning percentages.

Yeah, too bad the election isn't based on nationwide voting.

[RiverDog]

Yeah, too bad the election isn't based on nationwide voting.

Unlike other sciences, polling has the ability to analyze actual results and incorporate changes into their future polls. Sure, there's been some glaring failures, such as some of the state polls in 2016, but there's always been failures, the Truman vs. Dewey election being one of the most prolific.

There are studies that have looked at a whole bunch of polls that have concluded that they are no less accurate, and in some cases, more accurate, as they've ever been:

An analysis of elections between 2015 and 2017 across 11 countries including the UK, France and the US showed that errors in polls for the main candidates or parties were in line with data from the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... study-says

You didn't think they were irrelevant a few weeks ago when they showed your boy's job approval numbers rising. What's changed?

[idhawkman]

Unlike other sciences, polling has the ability to analyze actual results and incorporate changes into their future polls. Sure, there's been some glaring failures, such as some of the state polls in 2016, but there's always been failures, the Truman vs. Dewey election being one of the most prolific.

There are studies that have looked at a whole bunch of polls that have concluded that they are no less accurate, and in some cases, more accurate, as they've ever been:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... study-says

You didn't think they were irrelevant a few weeks ago when they showed your boy's job approval numbers rising. What's changed?

first of all, go back and look what I posted and why. Nothing has changed for me, I can't say the same for most others on this forum though.

Polling is seriously flawed these days because the phone system no longer works for pollsters. You can't even tell where someone lives these days by their area code. I can purchase a phone number with your area code on it and call you from Idaho - take me about 10 minutes. That's one of the biggest reasons for polls no longer working - you can't tell where exactly the person lives to include in which poll stats.

Another flaw is as you pointed out, caller ID and people who won't answer unknown caller ids or if they answer, won't tell the person on the other end anything. The demographics for those who do answer would be interesting if they published that info.

Finally, there's somewhat of a phenomenon going on where many people publicly espouse one thing so as to not draw the ire and attention of a couple percentage of the public - they just don't need the hassle of being shouted down, protested, etc - and yet they vote another way. I believe this is the largest factor in why polls are so wrong these days.

[RiverDog]

Polling is seriously flawed these days because the phone system no longer works for pollsters. You can't even tell where someone lives these days by their area code. I can purchase a phone number with your area code on it and call you from Idaho - take me about 10 minutes. That's one of the biggest reasons for polls no longer working - you can't tell where exactly the person lives to include in which poll stats.

I know this is a rhetorical question, but did you read the link I posted (of course, you didn't). Here's a snippet from the article:

Looking at polls for the last week of campaigns for 220 national elections in 32 countries over the decades to 2017 – with data for a handful of countries stretching back to 1942 – errors have held steady at about 2%. When the team looked only at the 11 countries that had regular polling over several decades, polling errors were found to have dropped over time.

Another flaw is as you pointed out, caller ID and people who won't answer unknown caller ids or if they answer, won't tell the person on the other end anything. The demographics for those who do answer would be interesting if they published that info.

They use more than just telephones nowadays. They now incorporate online surveys and social media polling, and apparently it works, because they have been able to maintain their 2% error rate.

Finally, there's somewhat of a phenomenon going on where many people publicly espouse one thing so as to not draw the ire and attention of a couple percentage of the public - they just don't need the hassle of being shouted down, protested, etc - and yet they vote another way. I believe this is the largest factor in why polls are so wrong these days.

All you are doing is venturing an unsubstantiated personal opinion vs. the study I've posted. Let's see some facts.

[idhawkman]

I know this is a rhetorical question, but did you read the link I posted (of course, you didn't). Here's a snippet from the article:

Looking at polls for the last week of campaigns for 220 national elections in 32 countries over the decades to 2017 – with data for a handful of countries stretching back to 1942 – errors have held steady at about 2%. When the team looked only at the 11 countries that had regular polling over several decades, polling errors were found to have dropped over time.

Well the election results in 2016 and now in 2019 just don't hold that assertion as true, does it?

They use more than just telephones nowadays. They now incorporate online surveys and social media polling, and apparently it works, because they have been able to maintain their 2% error rate.

All of which can and have been gamed. You are familiar with proxies, right?

Let me ask you a rhetorical question. When the NFL wants to hold an online survey about pro-bowl candidates do they get the best players or do they get the players who activated their base enough to go vote for them?

All you are doing is venturing an unsubstantiated personal opinion vs. the study I've posted. Let's see some facts.

Two real big facts for you that are irrefutable.

1. Trump is president and not Clinton
2. Scott Morrison is PM and Bill Shorten is not.

If you have the stomach to read the links you will find the similarities in our 2020 upcoming election and you will also see all the proof you need.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/world/australia/election-results-scott-morrison.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-australian-elections-may-tell-us-about-the-2020-presidential-elections/
Got to love this quote from the National Review article. Sorry Never-Trumpers - TDS is a mental order.

Observers compared it to the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s victory in 2016. They might also notice other right-of-center leaders who were generally opposed by most of their country’s political and cultural elites and who won anyway: Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Japan’s Shinzo Abe, Austria’s Sebastian Kurz, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, the leaders of Poland’s Law and Justice Party. Now there’s talk that Conservative Boris Johnson may become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-05-17/polls-open-in-australian-election-opposition-tipped-to-win


And this one is always fun to watch.
https://youtu.be/G87UXIH8Lzo
And this one
https://youtu.be/Lrpkxl4DXtk

[RiverDog]

You're talking about one election out of thousands, and had you read what I posted, you would have seen that they excluded referendums, specifically the Brexit vote. I never said that they were 100% reliable.

The information I referenced encompassed 31,000 polls taken in 45 countries over 75 years and compared it with elections/polls in 11 countries, including the US and France, from 2015-2017 and concluded that they fall outside their margin for error about 2% of the time. So rather than producing one or two instances where polls have failed beyond their margin of error, show me something that supports your contention that polling in general is as flawed as you claim it is.

[idhawkman]

You're talking about one election out of thousands, and had you read what I posted, you would have seen that they excluded referendums, specifically the Brexit vote. I never said that they were 100% reliable.

The information I referenced encompassed 31,000 polls taken in 45 countries over 75 years and compared it with elections/polls in 11 countries, including the US and France, from 2015-2017 and concluded that they fall outside their margin for error about 2% of the time. So rather than producing one or two instances where polls have failed beyond their margin of error, show me something that supports your contention that polling in general is as flawed as you claim it is.

Wow, did you read the quote I posted from one of the articles? If you did, how can you say I'm talking about one election?

[Hawktawk]

Now Trump is whining about Fox giving air time/town hall opportunities etc to democrats. Says they are on the losing side just for letting democrats on the air I saw him saying these things in his rant in Pennsylvania"whats up with fox news" to people who watch it every day where he also accused Michigan republican congressman Amash as "weak" among other 5th grade insults for suggesting correctly that he had committed impeachable offences. Trump referred to Biden repeatedly as "sleepy Joe" to what seemed to be an uncharacteristically muted response to this sweating pig ranting and raving about a Scranton born native son who is currently waxing him by 11 points in the state. The only more muted response to his psychotic ramblings I've witnessed was him stomping on the grave of John McCain at a military tank factory in Ohio to total silence.

If it winds up Biden vs this idiot hes going to get destroyed unless Russia actually starts changing votes.

And before you pop off about inaccuracies in the polls ID the midterm poll showed an 8 plus point generic advantage for democrats prior to the election and sure enough they flipped more house seats from red to blue than anytime since right after Watergate. In the senate they lost a net of 2 despite defending 27 to 9 and lost a series of razor thin races in deep red states with extremely liberal candidates taking on staunch trump backing conservatives.

Polls showed just pre election that the drunk rapist being appointed to the supreme court after a disgraceful scene by both parties had helped republican senate candidates by a couple of points and sure enough it did, barely but its still a canary in a coal mine. Overall more than 60 million democratic votes were cast (about what Romney and McCain got the last 2 general elections)compared to a little over 50 million for republicans.

Its a long time till Nov of 2020 for sure but this president has been underwater since election day with a very solid economy and market. The bill is going to come due sooner or later for standing by this man.

[I-5]

On this I agree with you, ID. I don't put much stock in polls, and I also don't like how voters watch polls to decide whether or not their vote matters. It ALWAYS matters.

[idhawkman]

Most important power is the Bully Pulpit which Trump just took advantage of. Definitely a 3 bag popcorn day. Pelosi threw the first punch today and Trump literally Bit** slapped her in the Rose Garden.

Your Turn Chucky...

[idhawkman]

Wow! What a Milquetoast response by the dems. They have to have something more coming than "I'll pray for the president."

[I-5]

Is it really about Trump vs Pelosi? When there's a dem in the house, do you complain about executive actions and a president sidestepping congress? What is your idea of checks and balances?

[idhawkman]

Is it really about Trump vs Pelosi? When there's a dem in the house, do you complain about executive actions and a president sidestepping congress? What is your idea of checks and balances?

Not sure I follow your question, can you clarify. There is a Dem in the house, Pelosi is speaker of the house. So I'm not following you.

[c_hawkbob]

He means the White house. Were you as protective of presidential prerogative when it was Clinton playing fast and loose with constitutional checks and balances?

[I-5]

What Bob said

[RiverDog]

Is it really about Trump vs Pelosi? When there's a dem in the house, do you complain about executive actions and a president sidestepping congress? What is your idea of checks and balances?

Not sure I follow your question, can you clarify. There is a Dem in the house, Pelosi is speaker of the house. So I'm not following you.

He means the White house. Were you as protective of presidential prerogative when it was Clinton playing fast and loose with constitutional checks and balances?

They're talking about Congress's constitutional authority to investigate the executive branch. It is clear that the Constitution, by giving Congress the responsibility to impeach the POTUS for "high crimes and misdemeanors" that it intends for them to investigate the executive and resolve if he/she has committed an impeachable offense. The House, per the Constitution, is where impeachment proceedings are to begin, so by stonewalling the House on everything and anything related to an investigation of the Executive Branch, Trump is giving the middle finger to Constitution, which is what Cbob and I-5 are talking about when they mention checks and balances.

The question that is put to you is do you believe in checks and balances, or to be more specific, do you believe in the Constitution?

[idhawkman]

He means the White house. Were you as protective of presidential prerogative when it was Clinton playing fast and loose with constitutional checks and balances?

Unfortunately, there wasn't much social media around back in Clinton's day.

Here's what I think on the president's power.

1. I think they have too much power with executive orders. That is not what the constitution had in mind when they created this government.
2. I think that Congress has had such weak spines over the past 4-5 decades in making true meaningful legislation and have abdicated their powers to the president and his many departments to issues regulations that effectively act as taxes. This way, Congress is not the ones who raised the taxes, it is Fish and Game or the Energy dept., etc.
3. Congress can't have it both ways, they gave the president the power to do many things but since they gave him that power they can't now say, he shouldn't be using it. A good example of this is the border laws. Clinton singed a law back in the 90s that puts sponsors of immigrants on the hook to repay any social programs the immigrant takes advantage of. They now can't go back and say, but Trump can't enforce this. Another example is the separation of kids at the border. Congress passed that law but now they point to Trump for following the law and say "HE" is immoral for enforcing the laws THEY passed.
4. I think the congress passes too many laws without ever removing old stagnant laws that should be removed. WHO, can keep track of all the laws that are on the books? Just like the bible says, "even the just man sins 7 times a day", I saw even the best citizen probably commits some sort of violation 7 times a day.

Not sure if that answered your question but if not, please restate the question and I'll try some more.

[c_hawkbob]

No, you didn't even try to address my question. I said nothing about social media. Re-read my actual question, it hasn't changed, I'd just be re-writing it.

[idhawkman]

They're talking about Congress's constitutional authority to investigate the executive branch.

See, this is a great example of where things go so wrong. Congress has no responsibilty to investigate. They have oversight authority. The administrative branch has investigative authority.

It is clear that the Constitution, by giving Congress the responsibility to impeach the POTUS for "high crimes and misdemeanors" that it intends for them to investigate the executive and resolve if he/she has committed an impeachable offense.

Again, wrong. They have the ability to oversee the actions of the president, not to investigate without a predicate or underlying crime. If there is an underlying crime, they have the FBI investigate, the DOJ to indict and prosecute. The congress has the responsibilty to oversee those activities and make sure they are carried out appropriately. Just becasue they put their faith into Mueller without overseeing what he was doing not to mention that they abdicated their control over the "independent counsel" rule to the executive branch in favor of the "Special Counsel". Their oversight again, was abdicated to the administrative branch and now they regret it. Too bad for them. Its too late to go back and try to change what has already been settled to their desires.

The House, per the Constitution, is where impeachment proceedings are to begin, so by stonewalling the House on everything and anything related to an investigation of the Executive Branch, Trump is giving the middle finger to Constitution, which is what Cbob and I-5 are talking about when they mention checks and balances.

Then let them name the crime they are "investigating". They are fishing for a violation. In the U.S. you are not suppose to be subject to fishing expeditions without a crime. E.g. We have the man, now lets find what he did wrong vs here's a crime that happened, lets follow the facts to find out who committed the crime. If we continue with the first example, no president from this point forward will be effective because they will be subject to malicious fishing expeditions and not allowed to govern.

The question that is put to you is do you believe in checks and balances, or to be more specific, do you believe in the Constitution?

Absolutely but remember checks and balances go both ways. The Congress has oversight but the president also has executive privledge and both are assumed innocent until proven guilty so the fishing for a crime should stop and stop now!

[idhawkman]

He means the White house. Were you as protective of presidential prerogative when it was Clinton playing fast and loose with constitutional checks and balances?

Maybe, can you give me an example of what Clinton played fast and loose with or what you are accusing Trump of being fast and loose with and how they are related?

[idhawkman]

Wait a minute Cbob, you can't possibly be talking about the star report that stated the president was GUILTY of committing 11 crimes and the Mueller report that stated they had no basis to charge the president with a crime, right?

That can't possibly be the comparison because on its face, that is laughable.

[c_hawkbob]

Actually it's a simple yes or no question, I take your answer to be no. It's evident that your take on such matters is an entirely partisan proposition.

[idhawkman]

Actually it's a simple yes or no question, I take your answer to be no. It's evident that your take on such matters is an entirely partisan proposition.

Infer what you like, my position is very stable on these matters.

[I-5]

Interesting that ID thinks of checks and balances having to do with crimes committed or not. I don't think that's what it's about, though it can include it.

Checks and balances operate throughout the U.S. government, as each branch exercises certain powers that can be checked by the powers given to the other two branches.

– The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. In addition, the Senate must ratify any peace treaties.
– Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions.
– The president nominates federal officials, but the Senate confirms those nominations.
– Within the legislative branch, each house of Congress serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to pass a bill in the same form for it to become law.
– Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
– The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review.
– In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts
– By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court.
– Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-gover ... d-balances

[RiverDog]

– Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-gover ... d-balances

But how can that be? According to Idahawk, Congress cannot investigate the Executive Branch, so how can they determine if an impeachable crime has occurred?

[idhawkman]

Interesting that ID thinks of checks and balances having to do with crimes committed or not. I don't think that's what it's about, though it can include it.

Checks and balances operate throughout the U.S. government, as each branch exercises certain powers that can be checked by the powers given to the other two branches.

– The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. In addition, the Senate must ratify any peace treaties.
– Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions.
– The president nominates federal officials, but the Senate confirms those nominations.
– Within the legislative branch, each house of Congress serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to pass a bill in the same form for it to become law.
– Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
– The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review.
– In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts
– By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court.
– Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-gover ... d-balances

Yes, and one branch can not force another branch to bend to its will. Therefore, the President has executive privilege. Trying to investigate a president so much that you render them ineffective is also not what is intended by the founders and the constitution. This will all bubble up to the SCOTUS and will most likely be ruled in favor of the president since the congress is not investigating any crimes, they are investigating in search of one.

[idhawkman]

– Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-gover ... d-balances

But how can that be? According to Idahawk, Congress cannot investigate the Executive Branch, so how can they determine if an impeachable crime has occurred?

It seems that common sense is out the window here. Do you really think that congress can or will do a better job than your boy Mueller with all the resources he had and used?

[RiverDog]

It seems that common sense is out the window here. Do you really think that congress can or will do a better job than your boy Mueller with all the resources he had and used?

Yes, providing they are given full and complete access to Mueller's report and underlying documents.

[burrrton]

Yes, providing they are given full and complete access to Mueller's report and underlying documents.

You have got to be kidding.

It's remarkable how quickly Mueller went from principled, honest prosecutor doing his job to being relegated below a body with, what, single-digit approval?

Shows what coming to the "wrong" conclusion will do to some people.

[RiverDog]

Yes, and one branch can not force another branch to bend to its will. Therefore, the President has executive privilege. Trying to investigate a president so much that you render them ineffective is also not what is intended by the founders and the constitution. This will all bubble up to the SCOTUS and will most likely be ruled in favor of the president since the congress is not investigating any crimes, they are investigating in search of one.

1. How are Congressional investigations rendering Trump ineffective? You've been stating that Congress doesn't have the authority to investigate the POTUS, so if that's true, how can it be that an unauthorized investigation is rendering Trump ineffective? Is he that weak?

2. How do you know that the forefathers did not intend the POTUS to be investigated? Do you have any source for your opinion of the forefathers' intention regarding checks and balances?

3. What is your definition of obstruction of justice? Is it a crime?

[RiverDog]

Yes, providing they are given full and complete access to Mueller's report and underlying documents.

You have got to be kidding.

Mueller specifically indicated that he was not authorized to conclude whether or not the POTUS committed obstruction of justice and that it was a Congressional responsibility. If Congress is provided with everything that Mueller discovered in his investigation, they can come to that conclusion.

[burrrton]

RD, I agree- that's not my contention.

My point is saying that collection of complete boobs is capable of doing a better job investigating, ignoring the fact that we all know they don't even INTEND to do so, is laughable.

There's also the small matter that they're not privy to Grand Jury testimony, so they already have everything they're entitled to.

Investigate away- I don't give a rip. Just quit pretending this is an honest inquiry.

[edit]

I also don't think that's what Mueller concluded- he was authorized to prosecute any and all crimes he found. What I thought he said was, essentially (correct me if I'm wrong), that there were a number of highly dubious actions that might have been OoJ, but that he didn't feel they were 'prosecutable' (for lack of a better term- I'm on my first cup of coffee).

[Aseahawkfan]

But how can that be? According to Idahawk, Congress cannot investigate the Executive Branch, so how can they determine if an impeachable crime has occurred?

It seems that common sense is out the window here. Do you really think that congress can or will do a better job than your boy Mueller with all the resources he had and used?[/quote]

Sorry, I have to chime in just once.

Apparently, to folks like Riverdog, Hawktawk. Chawkbob, and I5. that two year investigation didn't happen. Mueller was just doing his thing for two years pretending to investigate Trump. When he found nothing chargeable against Trump, it was up to the Democrats to actually investigation Trump because...because...well I don't know because I thought that is what Mueller was doing. Mueller saw Trump's financial records, investigated nearly everyone associated with Trump, and charged several people for crimes American and Russian alike. But they didn't get the person everyone wanted him to get I guess.

I'm still wondering how you can obstruct justice when the investigation was completed, people were charged, and Mueller didn't seem to be obstructed. Which is what Mueller ultimately concluded that any attempts to obstruct were not successful and thus not a crime, since Obstruction of Justice is a crime only if it actually obstructs justice. Which Trump failed to do.

Now Riverdog seems to think a partisan attack by Congress disguised as oversight fishing for a crime on the president is something the president should tolerate and sit back and let happen. Even today I read an article that Maxine Waters is going to take Trump's bank records and look for signs of elicit funds, even with no crime charged to Trump. In essence, like you stated they are fishing for a crime. It would be like Riverdog and everyone Riverdog knows being investigated for two years, they find nothing they can charge him with, then another group deciding to continue investigating until they do find something. I doubt Riverdog would be cool with that at all, but anyone who hated Riverdog would be ok with it.

I truly wonder why all these folks trying to justify this partisan attack think it is ok to just keep fishing for a crime on anyone. I don't think anyone should be subject to endless investigation even if I didn't like him. I even though the Republican investigation of Clinton was a scumbag move. I thought it was partisan and embarrassing back then given so many politicians cheated on their spouses. It shouldn't have been a public spectacle back then.

I know Trump's a lying, cheating, narcissistic prick. But instead of pretending Riverdog, Chawkbob, I5 and Hawktawk love the Constitution and these other BS excuses they keep making to take the moral high ground, they need to just nut up and say "I hate this president. I hate Trump. I like seeing him investigated endlessly because of how much I hate this prick." Then at least I could have some respect for their honest position. We could stop pretending this is some intellectual discussion on the endless investigation of a sitting president that is right for Congress to do. Sorry, it isn't right. It certainly wasn't intended by the Constitution anymore than the crazy power the president now has with executive orders or the judicial Branch's overuse of the Commerce Clause.

All I see right now is two parties fighting each other in the most vitriolic and borderline illegal way I've ever seen in my lifetime of watching politics. And the backers of both of these clown show groups of politicians are using the loosest of justification for their support of these jackasses that are embarrassing the country, wasting time and funds, and pretending this is anything more than two sides trying to appear strong for their supporters, but in reality just making the entire nation look stupid with their lack of ability to govern effectively and their extreme stances and childish blaming of each other for their failures. I can only hope this tiresome clown show doesn't last beyond 2020. I'm starting to worry the Dems are wasting too much time down rabbit holes to nowhere and the media is pumping themselves up for another extreme disappointment.

Because that's the real reason everyone thought Trump was done. Because a biased left wing media was so intent on the idea that Trump was going to lose they failed to look at the real evidence available to show how wrong they were. I see exactly the same thing happening with a biased left wing media so intent on destroying Trump and pushing their agenda that they aren't bothering to look at what the American people truly want. If they let Trump play on American fears and concerns again, the Dems might find themselves screwed again and engaging in weak and endless investigations. If Trump wins a second term, their best case scenario is Mike Pence as president for the remainder of his term even if they flip the Senate to impeach Trump.

Either way, our country is the one that's screwed with these clowns in office. I will see you guys in another eight weeks or so if I don't do a drive-by posting. I'm down nearly 7 pounds, I'm back to repping 300 in squats and nearly back to 300 on my bench. Keep up the fun discussion.. What else can we do when the country's run by clowns with extreme positions and our president's a former reality TV show and our most popular Democratic politician is a socialist social media star talking about how capitalism is a amoral and there shouldn't be billionaires.

[RiverDog]

ASF you are confusing my position. Do I think that some if not most of Congresses current investigations are "fishing expeditions?" Absolutely they are. But that's not the point I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that Congress has a right, indeed, a responsibility, to investigate if it has reason to believe that any member of the Executive Branch has committed a crime. I'm arguing about the principle of checks and balances. Trump is simply stonewalling, refusing to cooperate with Congresses constitutional responsibility, holding important legislation hostage in demanding that they drop any and all investigations before he'll negotiate on other matters.

As far as obstruction of justice goes, it doesn't matter if a crime was or wasn't committed. If a person seeks to influence a witness, causes harm or threatens them with some form of retribution, prevents them from testifying, etc, that's obstruction of justice. Nixon himself was never charged with or even accused of a crime, nor was the crime that was committed a serious one (a 3rd rate burglary), but by orchestrating a cover up, by firing the special prosecutor, by refusing to surrender evidence, by paying off witnesses, he obstructed justice and would have been impeached for it had he not resigned.

As the saying goes, the cover-up is worse than the crime.

[Hawktawk]

Bob Mueller's report clearly states that the report "does not exonerate the president" on the question of obstruction and lays out 10 separate instances where he potentially did exactly that. It also clearly states that the Justice department policy of not indicting a sitting president was a factor in the decision not to charge him with a crime, also that Congress "may take up the question". Oh and BTW Mueller is far more trusted by the American people than Barr or Trump and a plurality including many republicans would like to hear directly from him in an open hearing.

As to the "no collusion claim" while it states that it was "unable to establish a criminal conspiracy" it lays out a massive scheme by Russia to meddle in the election to benefit Trump and proves the campaign was well aware of it and welcomed it" I love it especially if its later in the fall". " I love Wikileaks" whose founder is now charged with espionage in several countries.

Mueller also states he was unable to completely investigate that collusion aspect due to encryption of cell communication it could not access and other secretive correspondence.

And regarding the obstruction angle over 900 former federal prosecutors from both sides of the aisle have signed a letter stating it absolutely happened and to a person they would have indicted the president were he anyone else.

Lets put it in a sports context, Walter Jones regularly obstructed a D end from tackling Hass or Shaun Alexander hence they were successful in avoiding being caught and tackled . Obstruction obstructs. Its why its against the law.It prevents law enforcement from getting at the truth in many instances.


Asea bite me buddy. Yes I hate Trump and its no secret. Pretty much hate Dems too.

But these continuing investigations of the biggest criminal ever to infest the WH are legitimate oversight. Frankly Impeachment proceedings should be well underway or perhaps the 25th amendment should be invoked to remove this psychotic danger to democracy and world stability .

TDS is alive and well, its just that those afflicted by it are those who thinks this mans presence in the role hes in is OK in any way shape or form.

[idhawkman]

Yes, providing they are given full and complete access to Mueller's report and underlying documents.

And why on earth would they get that? They are not entitled to it.

[idhawkman]

1. How are Congressional investigations rendering Trump ineffective? You've been stating that Congress doesn't have the authority to investigate the POTUS, so if that's true, how can it be that an unauthorized investigation is rendering Trump ineffective? Is he that weak?

C'mon Riv, your argument grows even more weak with every reply. Its a common tactic for litigants to tie up the other party requesting documents, testimony, etc. so they can't effectively do their jobs. Knowing the perjury traps that have already been employed in the Mueller probe, you can't just go in and give testimony off the top of your head. That's what landed Popadopolous in jail on perjery. He told Mueller's witch hunters that he met with someone in April and it was actually March. THATS WHAT HE WENT TO JAIL FOR!!! Let that sink in. And the dems try to justify the appointment of Mueller with how many indictments and the very few convictions he got. Add in taxi medallions and money laundering and its all a great big hoax that has nothing to do with stopping the Russians from meddling again. In fact, it is probably bolstering them to do it 10x more.

2. How do you know that the forefathers did not intend the POTUS to be investigated? Do you have any source for your opinion of the forefathers' intention regarding checks and balances?

Yep, its called the constitution - maybe if you read it you will understand what the founders wanted too.

3. What is your definition of obstruction of justice? Is it a crime?

I think the legal definition is enough. I'll post it here so you also see it.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

So now lets hear you squirm and twist the definition that he obstructed justice even though no administration of JUSTICE is required because there was no collusion. How can you obstruct justice if no crime was committed? Riddle me that.

[idhawkman]

Mueller specifically indicated that he was not authorized to conclude whether or not the POTUS committed obstruction of justice and that it was a Congressional responsibility. If Congress is provided with everything that Mueller discovered in his investigation, they can come to that conclusion.

This is just not true. He was specifically instructed to investigate that and when Barr asked him if he took into consideration that he was a sitting president Mueller told him no, it did not factor into the decision not to indict. This is more twisting of what was actually written and posted.

[idhawkman]

I even though the Republican investigation of Clinton was a scumbag move. I thought it was partisan and embarrassing back then given so many politicians cheated on their spouses. It shouldn't have been a public spectacle back then.

Starr didn't do any favors to the republicans back then when he actually said Clinton committed 11 crimes. They had to hold impeachment hearings after that. Don't get me wrong, the republicans wanted him impeached at the time, too. I was included in that group. So much more dubious behavior has now become mainstream after that whole debacle for our politicians.