HawkShack.com

I'm really not trying to start another political food fight,there's plenty in OT already but i just want the thoughts of members of the forum of all perspectives. Obviously its being openly discussed at this particular juncture due to multiple investigations and some guilty pleas by people very close to this particular POTUS.I keep hearing a president can't be indicted, that a president has unlimited ability to pardon.

I just would like feedback on these two specific issues. Should a president of either party have the power to pardon anyone even if they are parties to an investigation of him or her? Should they be able to commit offenses that violate the criminal statutes of the country? DJT has said during the campaign he could "shoot someone on 5th avenue and people would still support him". I know it was tongue in cheek but what if a president did hurt or kill someone or have it done for them?Beat their spouse?etc etc.. I guess where's the cutoff?

Should a president be able to have carte Blanch' to do whatever they want as long as they control the political decision known as Impeachment due to having their party control the congress?

Hawktawk wrote:I just would like feedback on these two specific issues. Should a president of either party have the power to pardon anyone even if they are parties to an investigation of him or her?

Yes. If Trump wants to risk impeachment by interfering with an investigation by opening himself to abuse of power and/or obstruction of justice charges by pardoning potential witnesses that could testify against him, then go for it. The ability to pardon (possessed by both the POTUS and state governors) is a final check on unjust convictions or other prosecutions that could endanger our national security.

Hawktawk wrote:Should they be able to commit offenses that violate the criminal statutes of the country? DJT has said during the campaign he could "shoot someone on 5th avenue and people would still support him". I know it was tongue in cheek but what if a president did hurt or kill someone or have it done for them?Beat their spouse?etc etc.. I guess where's the cutoff?

Of course, a POTUS should be subject to charges stemming directly from violent crimes. The "cutoff" is victimless/white collar crimes like perjury, money laundering, etc. They can face those charges after they leave office. I do not want adventurous prosecutors affecting political decision making and compromising the Commander-in-Chief's ability to govern simply by indicting a sitting POTUS.

Hawktawk wrote:Should a president be able to have carte Blanch' to do whatever they want as long as they control the political decision known as Impeachment due to having their party control the congress?

I would prefer that the people have some sort of process available to them to recall a POTUS and demand a new election similar to what they do in Great Britain, but I'm comfortable with how our Constitution addresses this issue.

I do not believe the president should have the power to pardon myself, though I do find this whole crawl around in every nook and cranny of Trump's distasteful. I have never seen a president investigated to this degree and reeks of a political attack. I do not think it is right. I think it has wasted tons of money for nothing. I do not feel our elections are any more secure. I did not see a margin of victory so dramatic as to warrant this investigation. I think people support it solely because they hate Trump so vehemently. The entire thing is disgusting.

I also do not like that Trump did not divest his businesses into a trust. I thought was a scumbag move by him. His businesses are directly benefiting from him policies in Washington in a way I have never seen. I feel that is wrong. It should be required of a president to divest any business interests his policies will directly benefit.

I think we could all make a list a mile long about what needs to change in D.C. I do think changing something to attack a particular president is rubbish. If I hadn't seen the Republicans do the same thing, I'd say the Democrats were scum. But this is what they all do, they're all scumbags playing power games in Washington that do not benefit us. I'm pretty tired of it.

Right now we have a good economy going. Wages are actually rising. Both parties should be keeping this going and just containing Trump until 2020. It's already 2019. The next election year is here. What's the point of all this trash now unless they really think Trump can win again. If he does. then leave the jackass alone and do real business in Washington. This continued trash by these parties grandstanding trying to take down crass, rude, womanizing rich guy is pathetic on so many levels when you can keep the guy in his gilded cage until he's done. America proves once again anyone can be president and we will be just fine.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I do not believe the president should have the power to pardon myself..

Did you mean to say pardon himself? Or are you expressing your opinion that you do not believe that the President should not be able to pardon anyone?

[quote="RiverDog"]

Of course, a POTUS should be subject to charges stemming directly from violent crimes. The "cutoff" is victimless/white collar crimes like perjury, money laundering, etc. They can face those charges after they leave office. I do not want adventurous prosecutors affecting political decision making and compromising the Commander-in-Chief's ability to govern simply by indicting a sitting POTUS.

RD why do you feel white collar crimes are “victimless”? Money laundering and perjury are victimless. I think when a potus can perjur themself we are all victims . I was 100% in favor of removing Bill Clinton for his lies to a prosecutor . Money laundering is assisting a criminal enterprise that has likely harmed many people in cleaning up their dirty money while enriching yourself , cheating the irs on both ends as well. I think
It’s clear what my 02 cents is worth but I can’t for the life of me understand why potus and every other damn politician should not be bound by exactly the same rules as anyone else. Do the crime do the time. Isn’t that what the Veep is for?

RiverDog wrote:
Of course, a POTUS should be subject to charges stemming directly from violent crimes. The "cutoff" is victimless/white collar crimes like perjury, money laundering, etc. They can face those charges after they leave office. I do not want adventurous prosecutors affecting political decision making and compromising the Commander-in-Chief's ability to govern simply by indicting a sitting POTUS.

Hawktawk wrote:RD why do you feel white collar crimes are “victimless”?

Because they do not contain any apparent individual that has suffered any pain, injury, or loss of property.

Hawktawk wrote:I think when a potus can perjur themself we are all victims.

Collectively, yes. But not as individuals. Unless you sustained a physical or psychological injury or experienced some sort of direct loss of property (someone stole money out of your bank account, stole your car, etc), you are not a 'victim'. At least that's how I'm defining the term, and I'm not alone in my embracing that definition. Indeed, it's one of the reasons why I think that we should be de-criminalizing many drug crimes, as it's no sweat off my arse unless they commit some other crime besides f***ing up their own body.

Hawktawk wrote:I was 100% in favor of removing Bill Clinton for his lies to a prosecutor.

So was I, at the time. However, 20 years later, I do not feel that perjury in a civil trial, although serious, does not rise to the level of impeachment, ie a "high crime".

Hawktawk wrote:Money laundering is assisting a criminal enterprise that has likely harmed many people in cleaning up their dirty money while enriching yourself , cheating the irs on both ends as well. I think it’s clear what my 02 cents is worth but I can’t for the life of me understand why potus and every other damn politician should not be bound by exactly the same rules as anyone else. Do the crime do the time. Isn’t that what the Veep is for?

I did not say that the POTUS should not be bound by the same rules everyone else is. But at least while he is in office...and we're only talking about at the most 8 years...as a matter of national security and as Commander-in-Chief, he should be afforded some protection from litigation.

RiverDog wrote:Did you mean to say pardon himself? Or are you expressing your opinion that you do not believe that the President should not be able to pardon anyone?

Anyone. Only a committee reviewing all evidence should be able to pardon folks. Why should one person have the power to pardon like this?

RiverDog wrote:Did you mean to say pardon himself? Or are you expressing your opinion that you do not believe that the President should not be able to pardon anyone?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Anyone. Only a committee reviewing all evidence should be able to pardon folks. Why should one person have the power to pardon like this?

Isn't that what a jury is?

I don't want a situation like what existed in the deep south, until rather recently, which manifested itself in all white juries and racist judges born and raised in the deep south convicting a black man on virtually no substansial evidence whatsoever. And please don't tell me that situation could never happen again.

IMO a POTUS or a Governor's ability to pardon is just one more check against potential failures of our justice system. Just last week, our governor used the pardon system to overturn convictions for pot crimes that are no longer against the law. Perhaps it needs to be revised somewhat to prevent something like what Slick Willy did, ie waiting until the last week of his term in office to pardon those that donated to his fund, or from pardoning himself or immediate family members, but some form of a pardoning system is IMO an important check on our justice system and I don't want to see it done away because one POTUS might abuse it.

RiverDog wrote:Isn't that what a jury is?

I don't want a situation like what existed in the deep south, until rather recently, which manifested itself in all white juries and racist judges born and raised in the deep south convicting a black man on virtually no substansial evidence whatsoever. And please don't tell me that situation could never happen again.

A federal pardon system in the modern day taken from several areas would prevent this from happening again as much as you possibly can.

IMO a POTUS or a Governor's ability to pardon is just one more check against potential failures of our justice system. Just last week, our governor used the pardon system to overturn convictions for pot crimes that are no longer against the law. Perhaps it needs to be revised somewhat to prevent something like what Slick Willy did, ie waiting until the last week of his term in office to pardon those that donated to his fund, or from pardoning himself or immediate family members, but some form of a pardoning system is IMO an important check on our justice system and I don't want to see it done away because one POTUS might abuse it.

Our same governor also uses his executive power to effectively abolish the death penalty while we have child murderers that need to be put down. He was able to do this without review because he and some branch of his supporters believe in it. When do you have to check the executive power that is abused? I would prefer a committee do such reviews. They should do a review of past cases automatically when legal changes occur such as legalizing weed. Should have been an automatic. Surprised it took so long.

RiverDog wrote:Isn't that what a jury is?

I don't want a situation like what existed in the deep south, until rather recently, which manifested itself in all white juries and racist judges born and raised in the deep south convicting a black man on virtually no substansial evidence whatsoever. And please don't tell me that situation could never happen again.

Aseahawkfan wrote:A federal pardon system in the modern day taken from several areas would prevent this from happening again as much as you possibly can.

The federal government does not have jurisdiction over state crimes. But even so, it seems like you're creating another secondary jury system. A pardon is very simple: One person approves the pardon. It's just one more check to guard against a corrupt or otherwise flawed system.

RiverDog wrote:IMO a POTUS or a Governor's ability to pardon is just one more check against potential failures of our justice system. Just last week, our governor used the pardon system to overturn convictions for pot crimes that are no longer against the law. Perhaps it needs to be revised somewhat to prevent something like what Slick Willy did, ie waiting until the last week of his term in office to pardon those that donated to his fund, or from pardoning himself or immediate family members, but some form of a pardoning system is IMO an important check on our justice system and I don't want to see it done away because one POTUS might abuse it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Our same governor also uses his executive power to effectively abolish the death penalty while we have child murderers that need to be put down. He was able to do this without review because he and some branch of his supporters believe in it. When do you have to check the executive power that is abused? I would prefer a committee do such reviews. They should do a review of past cases automatically when legal changes occur such as legalizing weed. Should have been an automatic. Surprised it took so long.

In general, I'm no fan of our current governor. I was merely using his pardoning criminals that were convicted for crimes that are no longer illegal as an example of a proper use of a pardoning system. And I agree with you, it shouldn't have taken this long, although I doubt that there was anyone actually incarserated for just pot crimes. Most that are jailed have other, more serious crimes that they've been convicted of. What it does do is clean up a recreational user's record, which nowadays is important as many employers will not hire a person if they've been convicted of a felony or drug crimes.

Hawktawk wrote:I'm really not trying to start another political food fight,there's plenty in OT already but i just want the thoughts of members of the forum of all perspectives. Obviously its being openly discussed at this particular juncture due to multiple investigations and some guilty pleas by people very close to this particular POTUS.I keep hearing a president can't be indicted, that a president has unlimited ability to pardon.

True on the first count but untrue on the second count. The president can only pardon federal offenses/convictions. State crimes must come from the governor of that state. That's why they moved the Cohen case to the southern district of NY, so Trump couldn't pardon him. Problem is, when they twisted his arm, he pleaded to a non-crime. Oops on his part.

I just would like feedback on these two specific issues. Should a president of either party have the power to pardon anyone even if they are parties to an investigation of him or her? Should they be able to commit offenses that violate the criminal statutes of the country? DJT has said during the campaign he could "shoot someone on 5th avenue and people would still support him". I know it was tongue in cheek but what if a president did hurt or kill someone or have it done for them?Beat their spouse?etc etc.. I guess where's the cutoff?

First and very importantly, Trump did not say he could kill shoot someone, he was quoting a news article that was written about his supporters. This is how fake news starts. That said, no, he can not be indicted - he has a country to run and can not be distracted with a trial UNLESS that trial is after he's been impeached by the house of representatives and it is the Senate hearing the trial. That's the only check on him.

Now, yes, the president should have the power to pardon ANYONE charged with or convicted of a FEDERAL Crime. It is one of the checks and balances the adminstrative branch has over the Judicial branch. Changing it would require a constitutional ammendment which will not happen at least in my lifetime.

Something else to think about, "IF" a sitting president was to be indicted, it would be the Department of Justice who would indict them. The DOJ is a part of the administrative branch of which the president is the chief executive and has full control over. (Again, part of the constitution). The president appoints the Attorney General of the US. In Kennedy's case, that was his brother Bobby. Do you really think the president (any president) would appoint someone who would indict him? This is why they had to come up with an unbiased arbiter to try and then remove the president and the only one that can do that is another branch of the government which has a check and balance over the president. This is how it all works together.

Should a president be able to have carte Blanch' to do whatever they want as long as they control the political decision known as Impeachment due to having their party control the congress?

Their party in control of congress has no sway over how they would vote on impeachment or removal when you truly consider high crimes and misdemeanors. Frivolous crap like what they want to impeach him on now, that has no place hindering the progress of government. E.g. if Trump was to shoot someone on the street, his base may still support him but do you really think if it was outright murder and not self defense that the Republicans in both houses wouldn't toss him overboard? Ultimately, they get elected by voters like you and me. They would definitely vote the way it makes sense for them to be reelected even if it means going against the president from their party.

RiverDog wrote:
Yes. If Trump wants to risk impeachment by interfering with an investigation by opening himself to abuse of power and/or obstruction of justice charges by pardoning potential witnesses that could testify against him, then go for it. The ability to pardon (possessed by both the POTUS and state governors) is a final check on unjust convictions or other prosecutions that could endanger our national security.

Obstruction of justice is a very sticky one. He can't be indicted for obstruction if he's exercising his powers of the presidency such as firing of Comey. He's the chief executive and can tell DOJ to drop any investigation he wants them to drop. Clinton did it, so did Obama. Trump can do it too. The DOJ doesn't investigate every crime that is committed - they didn't charge Manafort with his crimes the first time they investigated him on the money laundering, etc. It wasn't until Mueller wanted to squeeze him that they went back to the same crimes they previously determined weren't serious enough to prosecute that they then went back to prosecute him for.

Of course, a POTUS should be subject to charges stemming directly from violent crimes. The "cutoff" is victimless/white collar crimes like perjury, money laundering, etc. They can face those charges after they leave office. I do not want adventurous prosecutors affecting political decision making and compromising the Commander-in-Chief's ability to govern simply by indicting a sitting POTUS.

Actually, the cutoff is "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"

I would prefer that the people have some sort of process available to them to recall a POTUS and demand a new election similar to what they do in Great Britain, but I'm comfortable with how our Constitution addresses this issue.

Agreed - addressed already in the constitution.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
Anyone. Only a committee reviewing all evidence should be able to pardon folks. Why should one person have the power to pardon like this?

Actually, this is how it is done already. You don't really think the president sits there and digs through cases to pardon do you? He tells his committee, the one he selected, to look into the case and see what the evidence is and what the issues are and then he makes a decision on their recommendation. It doesn't have to happen that way but it is the way it has happened.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
A federal pardon system in the modern day taken from several areas would prevent this from happening again as much as you possibly can.

I'm not for creating a 4th or 5th branch of government. The Executive branch as I pointed out before has 2 checks and balances over the courts. The first is the nomination process and the second is the power of the pardon. Taking one of those away would not make the government easier, it would just make it messier.

This is my problem with special counsel's looking into any branch of the governement. Who controls them? If the president can't fire a special counsel investigator like Mueller then who elected him by the people to be a 4th pillar of government and what is the check and balance on his power? Would they be able to investigate a congressman with the same impunity? How about a SCOTUS? This is why special counsel's violate the appointments clause, too. Who first appointed the special counsel and then who gave advice and consent of that branch that has power over one of the branches of the government? In the case of Mueller, he was appointed by a division of the executive branch and never confirmed by the judicial or congressional branch of our government. Therefore the executive of the branch that created him, can in fact fire him without obstruction charges.

idhawkman wrote:Actually, the cutoff is "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"

I left out misdemeanor crimes because they were classified much differently when the Constitution was written than they are today. Besides, neither definition is relevant because an impeachable crime does not have to fit a legal definition. An impeachable crime is quite simply whatever 218 Congressmen and 67 Senators says it is.

RiverDog wrote:I would prefer that the people have some sort of process available to them to recall a POTUS and demand a new election similar to what they do in Great Britain, but I'm comfortable with how our Constitution addresses this issue.

idhawkman wrote:Agreed - addressed already in the constitution.

A provision for a recall election of a POTUS is already in the Constitution? Where?

Speaking of Presidential Power & pardons - Here Old "Racist" Trump being racist and abusing his Pardoning Powers.....;

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/06/201028/who-is-alice-marie-johnson-trump-pardon-kim-kardashian



>>>>>President Donald Trump granted clemency to Alice Marie Johnson, one of many people of color behind bars for life because of a nonviolent drug offense, Axios reported. The commutation of her sentence comes just days after the president met with Kim Kardashian West, a Johnson supporter, at the White House to discuss prison reform.

Johnson is a 63-year-old woman from Tennessee who was sentenced to life in prison for a first-time drug offense.<<<<<<<<<

RiverDog wrote:A provision for a recall election of a POTUS is already in the Constitution? Where?

I agreed with your assertion that the process provided by our constitution for removing a president is the prescribed way. And yes, that way is in the constitution.

RiverDog wrote:A provision for a recall election of a POTUS is already in the Constitution? Where?

idhawkman wrote:I agreed with your assertion that the process provided by our constitution for removing a president is the prescribed way. And yes, that way is in the constitution.

What I was saying was that I wish there were a way where a recall election could be called for, similar to what they do in Great Britain.

RiverDog wrote:
What I was saying was that I wish there were a way where a recall election could be called for, similar to what they do in Great Britain.

That would turn into a situation worse than a high school food fight in the cafeteria at noon. No thanks.

idhawkman wrote:Actually, this is how it is done already. You don't really think the president sits there and digs through cases to pardon do you? He tells his committee, the one he selected, to look into the case and see what the evidence is and what the issues are and then he makes a decision on their recommendation. It doesn't have to happen that way but it is the way it has happened.

I figure most presidents are careful with pardons, but at the same time see what Clinton did at the end of his presidency. One guy going out pardoning people with no consequences can be problematic.

Regarding pardons this president has clearly insinuated and even stated that he has not “ruled out” pardoning Manafort in particular. On the one end I understand a chief executive righting the wrong of an overzealous prosecution but this is a naked attempt to buy loyalty from a party to the investigation of himself . That’s the dichotomy . Great debate guys and not a lot of name calling

Aseahawkfan wrote:I figure most presidents are careful with pardons, but at the same time see what Clinton did at the end of his presidency. One guy going out pardoning people with no consequences can be problematic.

Agreed. One of the modifications ought to be to get rid of these lame duck pardons, that he/she can't pardon anyone during a 3 month period prior to the expiration of his/her term of office.

So lets revisit the topic. 4 months have passed. Mueller report is out showing an inability by Mueller to establish a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY in regards to Russian meddling but establishes that it was massive in scale, that Trump was well aware of and welcomed it. The report details 10 instances of obstruction of the said investigation involving our greatest geopolitical foe and military threat hand picking him as their guy for president.

Forget "possible" obstruction, it was obstruction and was only kept from being much worse by appointees of the president refusing his demands.Over 800 former federal prosecutors have now signed a letter saying that if he were anyone but the president he would be arrested and charged.

Upon release of the report his stooge AG misled the public, committed perjury in front of congress strictly to set the initial narrative of total exoneration. And now they have claimed executive privilege over the entire investigation of Trump himself, his campaign, his kids including one who has just been subpoenaed to testify before the republican led Senate intelligence committee.

I don't agree with Pelosi on much but I do agree with her on 2 things. Impeaching Trump isn't worth it, its a bad idea and possibly political suicide although one can debate that. Hes not Bill Clinton sitting at 60% popularity being impeached for lying about a blow job.

I also agree with her that Trump and his handlers are baiting democrats to impeach him by making it impossible for their supposed co-equal branch of government to conduct their constitutional oversight responsibility in any other way.

Nixon is rolling over in his grave. He was a popular president who won reelection in a landslide, a glib self depreciating man, very intelligent and well spoken, ended the Vietnam war and opened the door to trade etc with China and 2 years into his second term he resigned in disgrace over covering up a politically motivated break in rather than be impeached with enough republican senators willing to go along to make his removal from office certain. The same american public who had handed him a crushing victory now gave him approval ratings around 25%.

Now we have a guy who is a complete loony toon jackass tweet monster, has done Oh so much worse things just with whats in the public domain and many more may be behind the redaction and hes hanging out at 40 something percent and pretty much impervious to any oversight or reprisal whatsoever. Is this OK? yes or no and why or why not?


I know that is a lot of stuff and ill get the predictable responses based on the person but can we agree on one thing? Minus an overwhelming control of both the house and the senate impeachment is worthless as a check and balance on an increasingly authoritarian executive branch. Senate republicans will privately express disgust at Trumps antics but publicly they will support him no matter what he does. Dem Senators were no different in the Clinton era.Its only going to get worse as today's politicians believe in noting except self preservationist at all costs. The low integrity low information short attention span transactional voters which describes the majority of them don't care about what really made this country great which was being first good and respecting authority and the rule of law.

Ill say it one more time. Presidents have too much power, period. They should not be able to pardon anyone they like or dangle pardons to people who are party to their own investigation. They should not have executive privilege. They should be subject to the same laws as anyone else and face indictment if they violate them. Its what we have a VP for.

Why am I wrong here?

Ill say it one more time. Presidents have too much power, period...Why am I wrong here?

About that? You're not!

It's something I've been saying for years. If you almost literally sh*t your pants about the 'wrong' person winning an election, maybe you should consider dialing back the power of the office to which that person was elected instead of freaking out and trying to game the rules so the 'right' person wins next time.

burrrton wrote:Ill say it one more time. Presidents have too much power, period...Why am I wrong here?

About that? You're not!

It's something I've been saying for years. If you almost literally sh*t your pants about the 'wrong' person winning an election, maybe you should consider dialing back the power of the office to which that person was elected instead of freaking out and trying to game the rules so the 'right' person wins next time.

Wow! we agree on something Actually Burrton if we were sitting on a couple of bar stools shooting the breeze instead of in a no holds barred political forum we might agree on quite a bit.

But as to presidential power I'm afraid its the same pipe dream as a viable 3rd party. The criminals of both parties currently in control of every branch of our federal government will not allow it to happen.What president won't veto legislation that would curb his power? what congress would seek to amend the constitution knowing their guy will be in there some day if he isn't currently? Ultimately it comes down to we the people and I have no faith in us collectively either, too many just don't give a sh#t what their politicians do as long as they are doing OK personally.Enough people in this country just don't vote that we could elect daffy duck with those who sit it out.

We're in a world of hurt. Its not 1974 anymore.Anything goes with the POTUS , really since Bill Clinton jumped the shark its been heading this way and its a snowball rolling downhill now.

I know, I better stop before I wet myself right?

Hawktawk wrote:So lets revisit the topic. 4 months have passed. Mueller report is out showing an inability by Mueller to establish a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY in regards to Russian meddling but establishes that it was massive in scale, that Trump was well aware of and welcomed it. The report details 10 instances of obstruction of the said investigation involving our greatest geopolitical foe and military threat hand picking him as their guy for president.

Forget "possible" obstruction, it was obstruction and was only kept from being much worse by appointees of the president refusing his demands.Over 800 former federal prosecutors have now signed a letter saying that if he were anyone but the president he would be arrested and charged.

Upon release of the report his stooge AG misled the public, committed perjury in front of congress strictly to set the initial narrative of total exoneration. And now they have claimed executive privilege over the entire investigation of Trump himself, his campaign, his kids including one who has just been subpoenaed to testify before the republican led Senate intelligence committee.

I don't agree with Pelosi on much but I do agree with her on 2 things. Impeaching Trump isn't worth it, its a bad idea and possibly political suicide although one can debate that. Hes not Bill Clinton sitting at 60% popularity being impeached for lying about a blow job.

I also agree with her that Trump and his handlers are baiting democrats to impeach him by making it impossible for their supposed co-equal branch of government to conduct their constitutional oversight responsibility in any other way.

Nixon is rolling over in his grave. He was a popular president who won reelection in a landslide, a glib self depreciating man, very intelligent and well spoken, ended the Vietnam war and opened the door to trade etc with China and 2 years into his second term he resigned in disgrace over covering up a politically motivated break in rather than be impeached with enough republican senators willing to go along to make his removal from office certain. The same american public who had handed him a crushing victory now gave him approval ratings around 25%.

Now we have a guy who is a complete loony toon jackass tweet monster, has done Oh so much worse things just with whats in the public domain and many more may be behind the redaction and hes hanging out at 40 something percent and pretty much impervious to any oversight or reprisal whatsoever. Is this OK? yes or no and why or why not?


I know that is a lot of stuff and ill get the predictable responses based on the person but can we agree on one thing? Minus an overwhelming control of both the house and the senate impeachment is worthless as a check and balance on an increasingly authoritarian executive branch. Senate republicans will privately express disgust at Trumps antics but publicly they will support him no matter what he does. Dem Senators were no different in the Clinton era.Its only going to get worse as today's politicians believe in noting except self preservationist at all costs. The low integrity low information short attention span transactional voters which describes the majority of them don't care about what really made this country great which was being first good and respecting authority and the rule of law.

Ill say it one more time. Presidents have too much power, period. They should not be able to pardon anyone they like or dangle pardons to people who are party to their own investigation. They should not have executive privilege. They should be subject to the same laws as anyone else and face indictment if they violate them. Its what we have a VP for.

Why am I wrong here?

There's so much BS in this its hard to even know where to start.

1. Too much power to presidents? That's because congress has such weak spines that they don't want to be put on record voting for or against the tough issues. So they give the president and the beauacracies the power to tax/fee/fine everything under the sun, implement regulations and so much more. If anyone should be looked at hard it is CONGRESS for abdicating their responsibility.

2. Congress is the one who put the restrictions on Barr from releasing the whole report and now they cry fowl. Hell, Nadler was whining the loudest of the stuck pigs in congress back in the Clinton era trying to keep the Starr report silent. Now he doesn't like the law he promoted so that a Starr report could never happen again.

3. I didn't see a single peep out of you when Obama was running around the world giving our wealth and fortunes away with executive orders. So why now are you whining about Trump who is actually bringing back wealth to the people?

4. I see you are now more intelligent than the former FBI director and "decorated marine" as you once put it. If he can't find any crimes what makes you think there was a crime? Where was your law degree from again? 19 angry democrat high power lawyers, 29 FBI agents, over 500 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, $45M and they can't find a chargeable offense and yet, you and 800 other academics who teach in every law school that you don't opine on a case you didn't investigate think you know better. Maybe because you would never face the humility of being proven wrong in a court.

On another observation, I see Nadler has postponed Mueller from testifying. Hmmm.... I wonder why. Do you think maybe it is because he found out that the republicans would ask the questions I posed a couple days ago and Mueller won't want to answer that nor will the democrats want to hear the answer to those questions.

But hey, keep the narrative going. Its over already but its entertaining watching you on the left go nuts. BTW, Trump's approval rating that you like to quote so much is at its highest point since inauguration day. He's gained mostly among independents and even some (6%) from dems. Maybe they are tired of hearing about the hoax and want real issues solved like border security, health care, infrastructure, etc.

You are delusional ID, really you are. For one I was ALL OVER THIS FORUM ripping Obama's abuse of power and generally weak governance so unlike you I am consistent as opposed to having a completely different view if its a R, a D or in this case the Trumptard party.I was a lifelong die hard conservative Republican until the party went down the absolute gutter in Nov 2016 and ever since right to the sewer.Swamp is running over.

As for Mueller's report "it does not exonerate the president" I don't know how much clearer that can be. Mueller states that Congress may take action regarding the questions raised in the report.Now it is true the Walrus and suddenly sleazy Rosenstein who has caught trumptard syndrome cleared the prez of obstruction unlike the over EIGHT HUNDRED former federal prosecutors from both parties who have signed a letter stating that in fact he clearly did commit obstruction.

McGanns testimony about 3 instances of Mcgann being instructed to ,A call Rosenstein and order him to fire Mueller, B Make a public statement denying the episode occurred, and C asked to write a statement denying the request for A and b had occurred is being blocked by executive privilege. McGann has been ordered to defy congressional subpoenas, clear witness tampering . Just yesterday the (partially) unredacted Flynn testimony shows that he was also tampered with by the executive branch and also a member of congress.


Now it has been revealed that Barr gave the WH attorneys a sneak preview of the report PRIOR to its release or even the 4 page whitewash letter. At that point WH attorneys approached Mcgann AFTER THE REPORT HAD BEEN COMPLETED about making a public statement denying obstruction occurred and he once again refused .

The president called McGanns testimony to the SC Bullsh1+ and then refuses to let him speak for himself. Mueller's testimony is also bogged down by the executive privilege claims made by the president as the mad tweeter continues to bash the investigation that "exonerated" him . Now I see you are celebrating the appointment by the perjuring Walrus of a prosecutor(not a special counsel btw) to look at the origins of the Russian investigation under direct orders of the president, basically the AG is being a puppet to an unindicted felon.

I guess if the Pres can get on his knees in Helsinki and slam our intelligence community in front of the guy who performed the biggest election hack in history and just a week or so ago get on the phone with the same evil murderous thug and yuk it up about the Russia "hoax" well WTF. Might as well intimidate the heroes in the intelligence community so they never look into anything our greatest geopolitical foe does again.

Then he calls people who have a problem with Russia meddling in our affairs"treasonous". Well no that is you Mr loony toons. Traitor.


I get it ID, you don't like democrats. I agree with them on very few things other than Trump is a criminal who should be impeached and jailed. I guess since you don't like democrats we should eviscerate co equal government ,just make Trump an emperor, its what hes acting like, a strongman with no accountability like the ones he publicly admires all over the world.

The power of the executive branch is a runaway train, especially when the engineer is the most conflicted corrupt waste of oxygen ever to disgrace the office. Truly scary times for democracy.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/opinions ... index.html
Yeah I know its CNN but it isn't all fake news

Hawktawk wrote:You are delusional ID, really you are. For one I was ALL OVER THIS FORUM ripping Obama's abuse of power and generally weak governance so unlike you I am consistent as opposed to having a completely different view if its a R, a D or in this case the Trumptard party.I was a lifelong die hard conservative Republican until the party went down the absolute gutter in Nov 2016 and ever since right to the sewer.Swamp is running over.

As for Mueller's report "it does not exonerate the president" I don't know how much clearer that can be. Mueller states that Congress may take action regarding the questions raised in the report.Now it is true the Walrus and suddenly sleazy Rosenstein who has caught trumptard syndrome cleared the prez of obstruction unlike the over EIGHT HUNDRED former federal prosecutors from both parties who have signed a letter stating that in fact he clearly did commit obstruction.

McGanns testimony about 3 instances of Mcgann being instructed to ,A call Rosenstein and order him to fire Mueller, B Make a public statement denying the episode occurred, and C asked to write a statement denying the request for A and b had occurred is being blocked by executive privilege. McGann has been ordered to defy congressional subpoenas, clear witness tampering . Just yesterday the (partially) unredacted Flynn testimony shows that he was also tampered with by the executive branch and also a member of congress.


Now it has been revealed that Barr gave the WH attorneys a sneak preview of the report PRIOR to its release or even the 4 page whitewash letter. At that point WH attorneys approached Mcgann AFTER THE REPORT HAD BEEN COMPLETED about making a public statement denying obstruction occurred and he once again refused .

The president called McGanns testimony to the SC Bullsh1+ and then refuses to let him speak for himself. Mueller's testimony is also bogged down by the executive privilege claims made by the president as the mad tweeter continues to bash the investigation that "exonerated" him . Now I see you are celebrating the appointment by the perjuring Walrus of a prosecutor(not a special counsel btw) to look at the origins of the Russian investigation under direct orders of the president, basically the AG is being a puppet to an unindicted felon.

I guess if the Pres can get on his knees in Helsinki and slam our intelligence community in front of the guy who performed the biggest election hack in history and just a week or so ago get on the phone with the same evil murderous thug and yuk it up about the Russia "hoax" well WTF. Might as well intimidate the heroes in the intelligence community so they never look into anything our greatest geopolitical foe does again.

Then he calls people who have a problem with Russia meddling in our affairs"treasonous". Well no that is you Mr loony toons. Traitor.


I get it ID, you don't like democrats. I agree with them on very few things other than Trump is a criminal who should be impeached and jailed. I guess since you don't like democrats we should eviscerate co equal government ,just make Trump an emperor, its what hes acting like, a strongman with no accountability like the ones he publicly admires all over the world.

The power of the executive branch is a runaway train, especially when the engineer is the most conflicted corrupt waste of oxygen ever to disgrace the office. Truly scary times for democracy.

Sigh**** Fake news is as much about what you leave out as it is what you choose to include. You tried this in the OP by stating that Trump said "he could shoot someone on 5th ave and get away with it". You conveniently left out that Trump said before that, "there was an article that said I could shoot...." See how the entire thing changes meaning when you include the whole quote?

Now you are trying to do it again with the exoneration and with the telling McGann to fire Mueller. As AG Barr points out in his interview this morning specifically on this issue, He instructed McGann to have Rosenstein fire Mueller based on conflicts of interest. I've covered Mueller's many conflicts along with Weissman's, Rhea, et al so I won't do it again here. Base on firing someone for conflicts infers that the investigation will go on but with someone else as the lead guy. He only suggested the lead guy get fired based on his many conflicts. He didn't tell Mcgann to fire Mueller and disband the whole investigation. Hell, he gave over 1.4 Million document and asserted NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE over ANY White house personnel. To ignore this is to change the meaning of the whole thing. Now, telling McGann to tell the whole truth about not ordering him to fire Mueller, he is right. He told McGann to have Rosenstein fire him AGAIN based on conflicts. Thus no charges by Mueller.

Mueller has put himself in a box. I personally believe that his team (read Weissman) put him up to stating that the report didn't exonerate Trump. When have you EVER Seen a prosecutor say that they could not prove someone innocent? THEY DON"T - Its a miscarriage of justice to do so. They either indict and show their cards or dismiss the case and keep their cards to themselves. This is another reason why Mueller doesn't want to show up to congress. I'd actually love to see him try and answer this question as to why he put that in his report.

edited: By the way, in the United States everyone is innocent until proven guilty. So trying to state that a person has been exonerated is folly since they are innocent and without charges remain so. E N D O F S T O R Y ! ! ! ! !

Mueller has put himself in a box? What is his mission? To do something about the president? No, that's congress' role which of course they won't do anything about. Mueller isn't in a box.

I agree with ID that fake news is as much about what you leave out than what you choose to include. Case in point. Helsinki press conference. Was there any American who wasn't ashamed of his performance in front of the world praising Putin (taking him at his word against his own multiple intelligence agencies)? You might not even know there was a press conference if you were reading Fox News that day.

But what does Fox News think is important today? I see very frequent stories about MS-13, like their front cover today, a violent murderous gang for sure, but who also account for less than 1% of all gang members in the US*. Why do they get so much attention? https://www.foxnews.com

CNN aren't angels, but don't delude yourself that Fox is the last bastion of truth. None of them are, you have to dig it out yourself.


* - In 2018, the gang accounted for less than 1 percent (10,000) of total gang members in the United States (1.4 million), and a similar share of gang murders.(wiki)

I-5 wrote:Mueller has put himself in a box? What is his mission? To do something about the president? No, that's congress' role which of course they won't do anything about. Mueller isn't in a box.

I agree with ID that fake news is as much about what you leave out than what you choose to include. Case in point. Helsinki press conference. Was there any American who wasn't ashamed of his performance in front of the world praising Putin (taking him at his word against his own multiple intelligence agencies)? You might not even know there was a press conference if you were reading Fox News that day.

But what does Fox News think is important today? I see very frequent stories about MS-13, like their front cover today, a violent murderous gang for sure, but who also account for less than 1% of all gang members in the US*. Why do they get so much attention? https://www.foxnews.com

CNN aren't angels, but don't delude yourself that Fox is the last bastion of truth. None of them are, you have to dig it out

* - In 2018, the gang accounted for less than 1 percent (10,000) of total gang members in the United States (1.4 million),and a similar share of gang murders.(wiki)

All outlets have some bias but fox is the worst with a few hosts who are totally in the bag for trump . Fox and friends is pure propaganda . Hannity regularly sits in on conference calls discussing policy and appeared on stage at a campaign rally last fall. Judge Janine , Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs are totally in the bag. Sheperd smith, Chris Wallace and occasionally Cavuto will tell the truth and get hit with death threats and calls for them to be fired by the trumptard base that makes up the majority of their viewers . Even trump himself avoids being interviewed by them and sticks with the volunteer Pravda names mentioned . Having watched CNN and MSNBC quite a bit they have a lot of partisans but many hosts welcome opposing views on their programs and give people a fair opportunity to state their case . Fortunately the people by and large are not fooled by trump as the same polls that credit his policies for the decent economy give him very poor reelection numbers . No wonder he plans on allowing Russia to meddle as much as it wants . If he can’t crack 50% with a good economy Putin might be his only chance in 2020

Hawktawk wrote:
All outlets have some bias but fox is the worst with a few hosts who are totally in the bag for trump . Fox and friends is pure propaganda . Hannity regularly sits in on conference calls discussing policy and appeared on stage at a campaign rally last fall. Judge Janine , Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs are totally in the bag. Sheperd smith, Chris Wallace and occasionally Cavuto will tell the truth and get hit with death threats and calls for them to be fired by the trumptard base that makes up the majority of their viewers . Even trump himself avoids being interviewed by them and sticks with the volunteer Pravda names mentioned . Having watched CNN and MSNBC quite a bit they have a lot of partisans but many hosts welcome opposing views on their programs and give people a fair opportunity to state their case . Fortunately the people by and large are not fooled by trump as the same polls that credit his policies for the decent economy give him very poor reelection numbers . No wonder he plans on allowing Russia to meddle as much as it wants . If he can’t crack 50% with a good economy Putin might be his only chance in 2020

And there's your problem. You need to discern between commentators and reporters.

idhawkman wrote:And there's your problem. You need to discern between commentators and reporters.

Most of the people Hawktalk mentioned aren't just commentators. They are show hosts. There's a difference between them and someone like Juan Williams who is just a commentator/contributor and does not have a show of his own. All of Fox's show hosts (save those like Cavuto who's specialty is business and finance) are very politically biased. It's part of Fox's job description for show hosts that they be hard line conservatives.

We would have known about Stormy Daniels prior to the election if not for Rupert Murdoch. A former journalist for the network, a woman, had the scoop 18 months before anyone else and was told by a superior that "the boss wants Trump elected, let it go". She was demoted and later fired.

And yes RD guys like Rush who I listened to for over 20 years as well as guys like Hannity, Carlson etc have a tremendous effect on public opinion based on the people who watch them which is the largest segment of cable viewers of any one channel. Its 80% pure Trump propaganda and he tweets out several hosts statements in real time.

As for me thank God almighty I'm free at last

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

Wow Fox poll too. This is not really good news on the presidents side other than on the impeachment question.

Frankly I've gravitated to the position they should just do it anyway even though that is what he wants.

Be careful what you wish for. Clinton was at 66% approval when impeached over lying to Starr about a Bl#w job. This is different. I think if the democrats pull the trigger and public hearings are held educating the low information voters a majority of which oppose him already his polls may actually worsen.

I still don't think Republicans would actually remove him but It could further damage the reelection prospects of a man whose most optimistic pollster Rasmussen only comes up with 45% support with 50 year lows in unemployment, market near record highs etc. Unless Biden has a humongous screw up or somehow gets beat in the primaries Trump is already on life support.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey- ... d795cb11b2

Another oldy but a goodie Both parties are full of phonies but the Trump party(republican party no longer exists) takes the hand painted raindrop

Hawktawk wrote: And yes RD guys like Rush who I listened to for over 20 years as well as guys like Hannity, Carlson etc have a tremendous effect on public opinion based on the people who watch them which is the largest segment of cable viewers of any one channel. Its 80% pure Trump propaganda and he tweets out several hosts statements in real time.

Limbaugh lost me aprox. 20 years ago when he picked on a story that blamed environmental laws for the deaths of several firefighters in the North Cascades area because according to the unsubstantiated report, they were prevented from accessing water from a nearby stream to fight a wildfire due to protections for migrating salmon. The investigation determined there was no truth whatsoever to the claims, yet Limbaugh never corrected his statements, he just let the issue go and with it, left his listeners that didn't bother to fact check his information believing what he said was the truth. It was then that I determined that I couldn't trust him or what he reported on. There was also his very short stint on ESPN when he started a bunch of BS about the MSM needing a black quarterback, ie Donovan McNabb.

Actually my favorite talk radio program was Neal Bortz, a conservative libertarian that had a relatively small number of stations carrying his program, mostly in the southeast. But I haven't listened to any talk radio for close to 15 years.

RiverDog wrote:But I haven't listened to any talk radio for close to 15 years.

You should give Michael Medved a try if you're ever inclined. Whether you agree or disagree with him (he's conservative, but reasonable), his show is entertaining because he prioritizes dissenting opinions.

Plus, his history shows are fantastic.

RiverDog wrote:But I haven't listened to any talk radio for close to 15 years.

burrrton wrote:You should give Michael Medved a try if you're ever inclined. Whether you agree or disagree with him (he's conservative, but reasonable), his show is entertaining because he prioritizes dissenting opinions.

Plus, his history shows are fantastic.

Actually I used to listen to him back in the day, and I agree, he's a conservative (nearly all of talk radio is) but not the flame thrower that Limbaugh and Hannity are. If I remember correctly, most of his subjects were more about general society than they were pure politics.

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.