• You must be logged in to see or use the chatbox

Knox

Queen of the Cunts
Bold Member!
I'm so bad at not arguing. Here's where the hypocrisy comes back into play:

You mentioned her level of corruption but you like her? Does corruption not bother you? And I'm genuinely asking, I'm not being a smart ass. I'm just wondering if her corruption doesn't bother you because she stands for a lot of the things you do? That would be the hypocrisy of it if you condemn others for being corrupt. Or you like her as a person and not a politician because both could be true. You definitely don't seem like a hypocrite and that's why I'm asking.

All politicians are corrupt one way or another so I'm not trying to slam the door on you or anything. Not sweet dear Bernie though. Anyone have dirt on him? I'd be shocked. He reminds me of my sweet naive Grandpa Charlie. He's been screwed over by plenty of women too.

That was a joke. Sorry Grandma.
Of course it bothers me. But I am of the same opinion as you. ALL politicians have some level of corruption. ALL of them. (Okay, maybe not Bernie, but somewhere he probably does, (I said probably lol). I think you kind of have to be a politician. If you can't play dirty a bit you'll get eaten.

So yes, I am okay with her level of corruption. Mostly. And I say mostly because nothing has ever been proven. And never will be. The very few things that have? I'm okay with in the large scheme of things. So no, I'm not a hypocrite. I'm honest. And that's why a bunch in this thread can't stand it.

As for the difference in her and tRump? It's so huge I can't begin to explain it tonight, but maybe I'll try tomorrow morning.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Mrsarcastic

Member
Of course it bothers me. But I am of the same opinion as you. ALL politicians have some level of corruption. ALL of them. (Okay, maybe not Bernie, but somewhere he probably does, (I said probably lol). I think you kind of have to be a politician. If you can't play dirty a bit you'll get eaten.

So yes, I am okay with her level of corruption. Mostly. And I say mostly because nothing has ever been proven. And never will be. The very few things that have? I'm okay with in the large scheme of things. So no, I'm not a hypocrite. I'm honest. And that's why a bunch in this thread can't stand it.

As for the difference in her and tRump? It's so huge I can't begin to explain it tonight, but maybe I'll try tomorrow morning.
I'm sure you have enough reasons to write a novel lol. Personally, I don't think either of them are worth your time but I understand why it's important to you.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Kiss_My_Axe

Active Member
Bold Member!
Breaking news! Politician's do shady shit, ya'll. :rolleyes:

On no planet is Hillary or Obama or hell, Bush 1 and 2 on the same level of corrupt and self serving as Trump. And, he makes GW look like a god damn savant. He's not just an asshole. He is a imbecilic criminal with a hardon for revenge. He is a fucking embarrassment. He is a fucking cartoon.

That is why no one is responding to your tired "argument." There is no point. At best, your facts are conspiracy, sorry to break it to you. It's boring and that horse was kicked to death well over 2 years ago. All that can be done now is to keep electing good people at a local level and hope to populate the house/congress with sane and fair minded people like we've been doing steadily. Trump could very well win a second term, the corruption of gerrymandering and electoral college reaches far and wide but our eyes are open now, more than ever in our history.

View attachment 18498


I mean, I actually listened to him say with my own ears this morning that there were no protesters and everyone loves him in England. He is such a delusional bag of micro dicks. It's barely funny anymore.
View attachment 18499
Yeah they do shady ass shit.
Nobody wants to talk about HRC because she's a non-factor. Am I a fan? Nnnnnope. Do I trust her? Also, no. But what I don't get is why everybody wants to keep bringing her up. Then to say she's worst than trump :hilarious: I don't think anybody short of Putin is worst than Trump. He's an immature, tantrum throwing imbecile. He wears his ignorance on his sleeve. At least Hilary had SOME type of concept of how politics work. But then again, that doesn't matter. SHE DOESN'T MATTER. End of story.

The real question is why are ya'll so worried about somebody who has no say-so over anything and not the cantaloupe who is the great embarrassment of the country.
The point was that we weren’t given a real choice here. It’s
Nobody wants to talk about HRC because she's a non-factor. Am I a fan? Nnnnnope. Do I trust her? Also, no. But what I don't get is why everybody wants to keep bringing her up. Then to say she's worst than trump :hilarious: I don't think anybody short of Putin is worst than Trump. He's an immature, tantrum throwing imbecile. He wears his ignorance on his sleeve. At least Hilary had SOME type of concept of how politics work. But then again, that doesn't matter. SHE DOESN'T MATTER. End of story.

The real question is why are ya'll so worried about somebody who has no say-so over anything and not the cantaloupe who is the great embarrassment of the country.
The point was that everyone wants to complain about Trump, But what was the other option? Hillary. Would we have been better off, or worse, had she won? I don’t believe so. That’s why she is continually brought up. Feel free to dislike him and name the things he has done that caused you to dislike him. That’s fine. But some people try to pretend that the world would be better if he wasn’t president. So imagine if she had won. I mean, that was the choice was it not? Her, him, or third party. She’s so fake to me. I guess it was a lesser of 2 evils situation. Which isn’t really fair. Look at Swalwell. Begging for $1. Gotta have money and donors, things the average Joe is going to have a hard time coming across.
Do you know why we won't meet you half way? Because Clinton doesn't matter any more. She didn't win because the Russians stole it from her, so she flat out just doesn't matter anymore. But you lot cannot seem to let go of her. That's insane. Plain and simple. If she was POTUS go ahead and bitch to your hearts content. But she's not. So let her go already.

No one has said she's perfect. But she's also not the monster you make her out to be. She did not kill anyone in Benghazi. For fucks sake, talk to the republicans who slashed the security budget for it by almost 75%. THEY are to blame. We've had Navy seals killed under tRumps stupid ass orders but you want to keep bitching about shit that happened how long ago?????? That wasn't her fault.

We're sick and tired of you and your lots stupid hatred of someone who doesn't matter. But you keep hanging on to her so you don't have to deal with the utter insanity that is the fake potus now. Step away from fox entertainment and do some real mother fucking research for once.
I am not hanging onto her. I am pointing out the FACT that there was no choice. 2 pieces of shit to choose between. Hate “us” all you want. But the truth is that y’all seem to have this belief that things would’ve been better had she won, when it would’ve been SSDD. I could give a fuck less about her. She’s just a figure head. Just like everyone else. I do the mother fucking research. I don’t need fucking Fox or you to tell me how to think. I am telling you and anyone else with a couple brain cells to rub together that our in fighting is fucking pointless. You continue to insult, but have never once provided any proof that I am wrong.

The people you support talk of removing the gun rights that you and I are using daily. I’m trying to tell you that I am not your enemy. But that is how you and others have chosen to paint me. I’m saying these people we’re supposed to vote for are all on the same team. Two sides of the same coin. I don’t think it’s possible to be anymore clear about this. Why don’t you do the mother fuckin research? Provide some fixing evidence. They are all shitty, yet y’all continue to harp on one and not the other.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

DIAFplease

New phone, who dis?
Bold Member!
But some people try to pretend that the world would be better if he wasn’t president.
It would. It would definitely be better. You must be joking, right? I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that. Politics has been shady since it's inception. We have picked between the lesser of two evils for the entirety of that time. Do I pick a hard ass woman who knows what the fuck she is doing and wouldn't embarrass on a daily fucking basis or some reality show con man who couldn't govern his way out of a paper bag? I'll let you take a wild guess.

That's the difference between us and those of you who are willfully ignorant. And for fuck's sake, no one is trying to take your fucking guns away. Conspiracy bullshit seems to be what you are running with so, go off girl. Go off.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

DIAFplease

New phone, who dis?
Bold Member!
Her level of corruption is precisely why Agent Orange is president right now.
This is untrue. Hopefully you know that. Trump won because of voter suppression, gerrymandering and the electoral college. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. She won the election by a landslide. Ya know, since we're talking about what level of corruption we're willing to swallow and what not.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Prettypink513

Church Member
Bold Member!
Would we have been better off, or worse, had she won? I don’t believe so. That’s why she is continually brought up.
I believe we would have been better off. We're the laughing stock of the world thanks to Trump. Our freedom of the press is under attack, so on and so forth. But what ifs don't mean ANYTHING. We are in hell. Period

We can complain about trump because HE'S in the white house fuckin up. If Hillary won and embarrassed us on the world stage like this, we'd be talking shit about her. But guess what, she's not
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
1559839049787-png.18550


… giggle … giggle … giggle

The president’s iteration of white tie at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace was, in a word, a mess. The waistcoat was too long and too tight. The tailcoat did not fit. The trousers were voluminous. And the man himself looked so ill at ease in the whole unfortunate kit that his awkwardness loomed over him like Pig-Pen’s dust cloud.

Queen Elizabeth is quite diminutive isn't she. Why I've never noticed before seeing her stand next to the boorish, great pretender, I don't know.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Trump is ‘making up’ for not serving in Vietnam with increased defense funding, he says

Exactly 75 years ago Friday, Allied soldiers stepped on a deadly shore to liberate people they did not know, in a war they did not choose.

President Trump said he would have preferred to serve in that kind of war. One that stirred feelings of deep pride in a U.S. victory and righteousness against a clearly defined enemy.

But his generation got Vietnam.

“I thought it was a terrible war,” Trump told Piers Morgan on “Good Morning Britain” on Wednesday. “I thought it was very far away, and at that time nobody ever heard of the country. So many people dying, what is happening over there? So I was never a fan — like we’re fighting against Nazi Germany, we’re fighting against Hitler.”

The exchange occurred after Morgan asked Trump whether he “wished” he had served in the military, particularly in Vietnam, which Trump avoided with a string of student deferments and a medical disqualification for bone spurs.

Those actions have led Democratic challengers to suggest that Trump dodged service because of his wealth. “It’s not like there was just some empty seat in Vietnam. Someone had to go in his place,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said last month.

1559846784362-png.18566

The electoral college is in your favor. Win automatically no matter the circumstances.

… article continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-is-making-up-for-not-serving-in-vietnam-with-increased-defense-funding-he-says/ar-AACrrtb?ocid=spartanntp
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Fox News Exclusive: Trump says Mueller made a ‘fool’ of himself

President Trump, in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, said former Special Counsel Robert Mueller "made such a fool out of himself" last week when he delivered his first and only public statement about the Russia investigation.

Speaking to Fox News amid his visit to Normandy, France to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day, Trump alluded to some of the confusion generated by Mueller's remarks.

“Let me tell you, he made such a fool out of himself ... because what people don’t report is the letter he had to do to straighten out his testimony because his testimony was wrong,” Trump told Ingraham.

Trump was referring to Mueller’s initial suggestion that he was not charged with an obstruction of justice offense because of longstanding Justice Department policy.

“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller said last week, citing an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that states a sitting president cannot be indicted.

“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. ... We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said.

Mueller’s statements sparked controversy in the media and among congressional Democrats, who claimed they contradicted Attorney General Bill Barr’s original statements on Mueller’s obstruction of justice inquiry.

Barr, in testimony before the Senate, had said Mueller repeatedly told his team "that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction." Barr, upon receipt of the Russia report in late March, also had released a four-page summary saying Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the president committed an obstruction of justice offense — though Barr determined the evidence did not support such a charge.

1559848842195-png.18570


… article continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-exclusive-trump-says-mueller-made-a-fool-of-himself/ar-AACu9J9?ocid=spartanntp
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Mrsarcastic

Member
This is untrue. Hopefully you know that. Trump won because of voter suppression, gerrymandering and the electoral college. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. She won the election by a landslide. Ya know, since we're talking about what level of corruption we're willing to swallow and what not.
No she screwed over Bernie. That's been proven right? Or am I wrong? That is what I was referring to. She didn't win the election. It's been a couple of years, hopefully you know that by now. I'm not trying to be biting.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Voicemail from Trump's attorney to Flynn's lawyer released

The FBI released audio of the voicemail from President Donald Trump's attorney John Dowd to the attorney for Trump's fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. CNN's Shimon Prokupecz has the details.

Video @link

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/voicemail-from-trumps-attorney-to-flynns-lawyer-released/vi-AACuUVl?ocid=spartanntp



Post automatically merged:

U.S. Democrats ask Trump to rethink Independence Day speech plan

1559863270469-png.18578


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. Congress have asked President Donald Trump to reconsider plans for a speech at the Lincoln Memorial during annual Independence Day celebrations, saying it could turn a traditionally non-partisan event into a campaign rally.

In February, Trump, a Republican, announced on Twitter that he would host an event including fireworks on the Fourth of July holiday in Washington and include "an address by your favorite President, me!"

But the Democrats wrote to Trump on Thursday asking him to consider "an earlier time or alternative location for your remarks." They said they wanted to preserve the tradition of a large, apolitical gathering on Washington's National Mall, a landscaped park between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S. Capitol.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The day-long Independence Day celebration, which usually concludes with a concert of patriotic music at the foot of the U.S. Capitol and a fireworks display, commemorates the Declaration of Independence from Britain by thirteen American colonies in 1776.

The celebration "routinely brings tens of thousands of visitors to our nation's capital to join in celebration of America's founding," said the letter to Republican Trump from House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and two other Democrats.

… article continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-democrats-ask-trump-to-rethink-independence-day-speech-plan/ar-AACv1d7?ocid=spartanntp
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
New York Times drafts 'articles of impeachment' against Trump

1559882664455-png.18594


Nancy Pelosi might not be ready to impeach President Trump, but the New York Times is ready with a road map just in case.

The Times, a frequent target of the president’s ire, published a piece Wednesday titled, “The Articles of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump: A Draft.


The piece, written by a member of the newspaper’s opinion department, was put together by analyzing the articles of impeachment drawn up against former Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.

“If Democrats do move to impeach Mr. Trump, the articles of impeachment drafted against past presidents will probably guide them,” an introduction to the hypothetical impeachment articles reads.

“What might impeachment articles against Mr. Trump look like? To find out, we reviewed the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Then we edited them — by removing and adding passages — to match the president’s conduct as described in the Mueller report and elsewhere.

“Impeachment is often said to be a political process. But when you assess Mr. Trump’s conduct by the bar for impeachment set by past Democratic and Republican lawmakers for past presidents of both parties, the results are striking.”

The opening explanation concludes: “The pathway to a possible Trump impeachment is already mapped out in these historical documents.”

From there, the piece goes on to compare Trump to Nixon, stating the current president’s “behavior maps neatly onto the first and third Nixon articles, which dealt with obstruction of justice.”

It charges that Trump “stonewalled subpoenas” in a similar way to Nixon, pointing to the fact neither allowed themselves to be questioned by FBI investigators, and alleges that “like Nixon... Mr. Trump did provide false information to potential witnesses.”

The comparison to Nixon ends by concluding that the charges against the 37th president “required only modest tweaks to match Mr. Trump’s conduct.”

Moving onto Clinton, the Times’ piece states the first article of his impeachment has little relevance to Trump, as it was based on testimony the Democrat gave before a federal grand jury.

However, the third article of Clinton’s impeachment could be comparable to any Trump articles.

“The obstruction case laid out against President Clinton was largely based on his behavior toward witnesses in the investigation into his conduct… Mr. Trump arguably took more extensive steps than Mr. Clinton did to thwart investigators,” the piece states.

The Times’ experiment concludes by producing what it says articles of impeachment against Trump could potentially look like, as well as an assessment.

“There is no question that by the standards for high crimes and misdemeanors applied to past presidents in living memory, Donald J. Trump has committed impeachable offenses,” the piece states.

The piece was published as Pelosi continues to try to reconcile the different wings and differing opinions on impeachment inside her own party.

Pelosi is urging caution and patience in response to those clamoring for impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Yet South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-highest-ranking Democrat in the House, said in an interview Sunday that he believes impeachment proceedings ultimately will be launched against Trump at some point in the future. He suggested Democrats are already laying the groundwork in Congress.

“I think we’ve already begun,” Clyburn said on CNN's "State of the Union." “We’ve got all of these committees doing their work, we’re having hearings.”

Clyburn reportedly walked back those remarks afterward.

… article continues

Fox News https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-times-draft-trump-impeachment
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Well-Known Member
Bold Member!
Woman stabs herself because she’s sick of living in ‘Trump’s country’: cops

A Florida woman took Trump Derangement Syndrome to an extreme level — stabbing herself repeatedly in the abdomen and telling cops, “I’m tired of living in Trump’s country.”

Police found the unidentified 46-year-old woman outside her home in Palmetto on Sunday with blood all over her legs, hands, and face, according to The Smoking Gun, which obtained the police report.

The woman lifted her shirt and cops saw “three stab wounds on [her] stomach that were still bleeding.”

The fervent Never Trumper then told an officer she had “stabbed herself because she does not want to live in Trump’s country” and that “I’m tired of Trump being president.”
https://nypost.com/2019/06/06/woman-stabs-herself-because-shes-sick-of-living-in-trumps-country-cops/

But Trump Derangement Syndrome isn't a real thing, is it?

Right.....

It's almost as if impressionable and weak people are easily swayed into believing bullshit perpetrated by the MSM.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

DIAFplease

New phone, who dis?
Bold Member!
It's almost as if impressionable and weak people are easily swayed into believing bullshit perpetrated by the MSM.
Right? So much so that they voted for trump. Crazy shit indeed.

Oh and -

  • Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.


She didn't win the election.
She did. She won the only vote that matters, majority. Unfortunately, we're still adhering to an antiquated rule that gives us a president like the unholy shit stain that we have presently. Even with all the Bernie bros protest voting (I voted for him in the primary), overwhelmingly, America still voted for Hillary. A 100 years could pass and that fact would remain.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
1559945821315-png.18657


Ah yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton. When she won the democratic nomination for President Mr. Victoria turned to look at me and said, "What do you think loveliest of the lovelies and beautiest of all beauties?"

I imparted these scant words after brief contemplation. "Fuck it!." "It's hers to lose." And she promptly did.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Well-Known Member
Bold Member!
Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.
So what does this unknown source say about CNN and MSNBC?

Do I have to link (for a 4th time) the Harvard study that shows that negative media coverage of Trump is in the mid-90% range. People voted for Trump despite the media.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Well-Known Member
Bold Member!
US makes deal with Mexico on tariffs, immigration, Trump announces

The U.S. has reached an agreement with Mexico that heads off the start of tariffs on Monday.

The deal, announced by President Trump via tweet on Friday night, is said to include plans to return migrants seeking asylum to Mexico, where they will remain until their claims can be processed.


"I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended," he said. "Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to....stem the tide of Migration through Mexico, and to our Southern Border. This is being done to greatly reduce, or eliminate, Illegal Immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States. Details of the agreement will be released shortly by the State Department. Thank you!"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-makes-deal-with-mexico-on-tariffs-immigration-trump-announces

Winning.

She did. She won the only vote that matters, majority.
Nope, she lost the only vote that matters. And it's not going to change, New York and L.A will never dictate their will to the rest of the USA. Deal with it, or suit up for civil war.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Well-Known Member
Bold Member!
@CentreAussie Winning? I'll wait to read what all the deal intails and what the price tag of this deal will be.

View attachment 18682
The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended,
No tariffs, your brilliant cartoon is rendered invalid by this statement. You should be happy. A reduction in illegal immigration is a net win for all American citizens. Unless you are the CEO of a company exploiting illegal labor, or a sex trafficker.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Trump claims victory in tariff and immigration deal. But what did he win?

[/URL]

The president faced bipartisan criticism this week over his threat to impose steep tariffs on Mexico if the country did not take steps to crack down on illegal immigration at the southern border.

He announced a deal to avert the tariffs late Friday, three days before they were set to take effect. The decision averted a likely showdown with Congress amid shaky financial markets that were rocked by the proposed duties.

 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

DIAFplease

New phone, who dis?
Bold Member!
So what does this unknown source say about CNN and MSNBC?

Do I have to link (for a 4th time) the Harvard study that shows that negative media coverage of Trump is in the mid-90% range. People voted for Trump despite the media.
People voted for trump because they are stupid. Pretty sure there's a study around here for that too. Sorry, not sorry. :kiss:
Post automatically merged:

Deal with it
That's fucking adorable. So, republicans are violent as well as dumb? Is that what you are saying? If you don't keep shit outdated, racist and inadequately representative of all voters, we're going to get our guns and kill you? For fuck's sake, you are too fucking cute.

Unless you are the CEO of a company exploiting illegal labor, or a sex trafficker.
So, like trump? HAHA, you are on a god damn roll this morning. Thanks for the laughs.
Post automatically merged:

A group of white nationalists marched on an LGBTQ event in Detroit on Saturday, demonstrating Nazi salutes and carrying weapons.

Members of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) caused outrage at the event meant to celebrate gay pride, and one member was photographed appearing to urinate on an Israeli flag.

The Motor City Pride is described on its Facebook event page as the largest pride month event in Michigan, with 40,000 people marked as attending. On Saturday, some individuals tried unsuccessfully to stop the NSM group from entering the streets, which were blocked off by police and lined with rainbow flags.

Bet my tits that they are trump voters.

1560181697858-png.18740
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Full text: Watergate’s John Dean gives statement on potential Trump obstruction

Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness. Rather I accepted the invitation to appear today because I hope I can give a bit of historical context to the Mueller Report.

In many ways the Mueller Report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate “Road Map” (officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives”) was to President Richard Nixon. Stated a bit differently, Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee a road map.

The Mueller Report, like the Watergate Road Map, conveys findings, with supporting evidence, of potential criminal activity based on the work of federal prosecutors, FBI investigators, and witness testimony before a federal grand jury. The Mueller Report explains – in Vol. II, p. 1 – that one of the reasons the Special Counsel did not make charging decisions relating to obstruction of justice was because he did not want to “potentially preempt [the] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The report then cites at footnote 2: “See U.S. CONST. ART. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).”

Today, you are focusing on Volume II of the report. Neither of the two volumes are formally titled, but the first sentence of the second paragraph, on page 1 of Volume II states it’s focus: “Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice.” Volume II concludes on page 182: “f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” However, the Special Counsel’s office was unable to reach that conclusion, so the report neither alleges criminal behavior by the president nor, as the report states, does it “exonerate him.” (SEE MUELLER REPORT, VOL. II, PP. 1 AND 182.)

I would like to address a few of the remarkable parallels I find in the Mueller Report that echo Watergate, particularly those related to obstruction of justice. And I hasten to add that I learned about obstruction of justice the hard way, by finding myself on the wrong side of the law.


The examples that follow are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and before turning to obstruction of justice, I must make brief mention of the underlying events to place the material in context:

… article continues

Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/full-text-watergate-john-dean-trump-obstruction-1358916

Post automatically merged:

Justice Dept. Agrees to Turn Over Key Mueller Evidence to House

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department, after weeks of tense negotiations, has agreed to provide Congress with key evidence collected by Robert S. Mueller III that House Judiciary Committee members said could shed light on possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by President Trump, the House Judiciary Committee said on Monday.

The exact scope of the material the Justice Department has agreed to provide was not immediately clear, but the committee signaled that it was a breakthrough after weeks of wrangling over those materials and others that the Judiciary panel demanded under subpoena.

The announcement appeared to provide a rationale for House Democrats’ choice, announced last week, to back away from threats to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress. The House will still proceed on Tuesday with a vote to empower the Judiciary Committee to take Mr. Barr to court to fully enforce its subpoena, but even that may no longer be necessary, the panel’s leader said.

“We have agreed to allow the department time to demonstrate compliance with this agreement. If the Department proceeds in good faith and we are able to obtain everything that we need, then there will be no need to take further steps,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement. “If important information is held back, then we will have no choice but to enforce our subpoena in court and consider other remedies.”

… article continues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-dept-agrees-to-turn-over-key-mueller-evidence-to-house/ar-AACFwbH?ocid=spartanntp
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
No Secret Immigration Deal Exists With U.S., Mexico’s Foreign Minister Says … surprise … surprise

WASHINGTON — The Mexican foreign minister said Monday that no secret immigration deal existed between his country and the United States, directly contradicting President Trump’s claim on Twitter that a “fully signed and documented” agreement would soon be revealed.

Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s top diplomat, said at a news conference in Mexico City that there was an understanding that both sides would evaluate the flow of migrants in the coming months. If the number of migrants crossing the United States border is not significantly reduced, he said, both sides have agreed to renew discussions about more aggressive changes to regional asylum rules that could have a bigger effect.

“Let’s have a deadline to see if what we have works, and if not, then we will sit down and look at the measures you propose and those that we propose,” Mr. Ebrard said, describing the understanding reached by negotiators last week.

...article continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/no-secret-immigration-deal-exists-with-us-mexicos-foreign-minister-says/ar-AACFB4t?ocid=spartanntp
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Members online

Top