a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and democrats out Eric Swalwell, he who sleeps with Chinese spies, on the house i telling everyone committee. that’s more trustworthy?

You’re in a glass house wayne.

the republicans won’t be testifying. just calling witnesses and asking questions.

Jim moving the goal post again how predictable

with an alleged Chinese spy, Christine Fang Jim still figuring out what alleged means

And Swalwell cut all his ties to Fang after he was alerted by the FBI to the investigation, according to Axios, and there is no publicly available evidence Swalwell knew or suspected Fang was working for Beijing, nor is there evidence Fang broke any laws through her fundraising.

Jim being his usual Intellectually, dishonest, Self

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, your statement about Mueller is incorrect.

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office . . .

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your response (to the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes) "hence the pardons" makes no sense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it was because the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't think it was because the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was drafting the part of the Constitution that would soon become the presidential pardon power, Mason unequivocally opposed the provision. The president, he said, “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
But that’s about it. Everything else about these pardons, including the incentive they give the president’s allies to withhold evidence of criminality, is, unfortunately, within the anticipated scope of the pardon power. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention, having heard and rejected Mason’s prediction, can reasonably be said to have accepted the possibility of pardon abuse as the collateral cost of having a pardon power in the first place.

And why exactly would the delegates have done that? Why did they disregard Mason’s prediction? In the end, his concerns were rejected by his fellow convention delegates because, in their judgment, there were adequate remedies for that type of presidential misbehavior. As James Madison put it: “There is one security in this case [of misused pardons] to which the gentlemen [i.e., Mason and his supporters] not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with a pardon], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”


And there you have it. George Mason was prescient. James Madison—tragically, it turns out—was naive. The most insidious damage to American norms from Trump’s pardon extravaganza stems not from the extravaganza itself, though that is bad enough. Rather the damage to our democracy comes, most clearly, from the supine, almost sycophantic nature of Congress’s response to the Trump presidency since the start, both with regard to his abuse of the pardon power and his excesses more generally. Madison saw Congress as a powerful guard dog capable of preventing executive misconduct. Instead, in terms of pardon abuse, as with so many other instances of Trump’s overreach, it has proved little more than a lapdog.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-start/617397/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was drafting the part of the Constitution that would soon become the presidential pardon power, Mason unequivocally opposed the provision. The president, he said, “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”

Manafort and Flynn were indicted, one was convicted.
Plenty of inquiry was made about them and the charges against them.

But that’s about it. Everything else about these pardons, including the incentive they give the president’s allies to withhold evidence of criminality, is, unfortunately, within the anticipated scope of the pardon power. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention, having heard and rejected Mason’s prediction, can reasonably be said to have accepted the possibility of pardon abuse as the collateral cost of having a pardon power in the first place.

And why exactly would the delegates have done that? Why did they disregard Mason’s prediction? In the end, his concerns were rejected by his fellow convention delegates because, in their judgment, there were adequate remedies for that type of presidential misbehavior. As James Madison put it: “There is one security in this case [of misused pardons] to which the gentlemen [i.e., Mason and his supporters] not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with a pardon], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”


And there you have it. George Mason was prescient. James Madison—tragically, it turns out—was naive. The most insidious damage to American norms from Trump’s pardon extravaganza stems not from the extravaganza itself, though that is bad enough. Rather the damage to our democracy comes, most clearly, from the supine, almost sycophantic nature of Congress’s response to the Trump presidency since the start, both with regard to his abuse of the pardon power and his excesses more generally.

As was done with Presidents before Trump, like Clinton, for instance. Actually Trump was investigated by a not "supine" or "sycophantic" Congress, but by an energetic, determined, and politicized Congress, more than Clinton was, or more than many if not most Presidents.

Madison saw Congress as a powerful guard dog capable of preventing executive misconduct. Instead, in terms of pardon abuse, as with so many other instances of Trump’s overreach, it has proved little more than a lapdog.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-start/617397/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here we go with Pete's every now and then nod to the Constitution when he thinks it suits his purpose. What a crock. He advocates censorship of speech, getting rid of the electoral college, prefers federal policies that usurp the constitutional power of the states, prefers centralized government over localized government, is in favor of ideologies such as Progressivism, CRT, various Postmodernist concepts, that are antithetical to the Constitution.

He is not really a friend of the Constitution, unless he thinks he can squeeze something out of it that can put some narrative of his in a favorable light.

Progressivism has been the real and constant force that has gutted much of the Constitution, and has transformed much of the rest by its Progressive notions on how it is to be interpreted. And the Progressives have openly stated that it is not a functioning guide for our modern society, and, indeed, should entirely, or mostly be scrapped.

This all has been going on well before Trump. It may be convenient to vilify and destroy him as the villain that has destroyed the Constitution and the Congress. But that is absurd. The Progressve Congresses, and Presidents, and Judges were responsible for that, not Trump, regardless of what you think of him as a person.

And your response that "hence," the fact that the DOJ did not find that Mueller's 10 points of possible Trump obstruction were sufficient to violate obstruction statutes, was not the reason why Trump pardoned Manafort and Flynn. There were actually strong cases, especially for Flynn, to be made for the pardons. Not the least of which that they, especially Flynn, were implicated by a wrongful attempt to bring down the President.

And those attempts to bring down the President were as harmful to "our democracy" as what you want to blame Trump for.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Here we go with Pete's every now and then nod to the Constitution when he thinks it suits his purpose. What a crock. He advocates censorship of speech, getting rid of the electoral college, prefers federal policies that usurp the constitutional power of the states, prefers centralized government over localized government, is in favor of ideologies such as Progressivism, CRT, various Postmodernist concepts, that are antithetical to the Constitution.

He is not really a friend of the Constitution, unless he thinks he can squeeze something out of it that can put some narrative of his in a favorable light.

Progressivism has been the real and constant force that has gutted much of the Constitution, and has transformed much of the rest by its Progressive notions on how it is to be interpreted. And the Progressives have openly stated that it is not a functioning guide for our modern society, and, indeed, should entirely, or mostly be scrapped.

This all has been going on well before Trump. It may be convenient to vilify and destroy him as the villain that has destroyed the Constitution and the Congress. But that is absurd. The Progressve Congresses, and Presidents, and Judges were responsible for that, not Trump, regardless of what you think of him as a person.

And your response that "hence," the fact that the DOJ did not find that Mueller's 10 points of possible Trump obstruction were sufficient to violate obstruction statutes, was not the reason why Trump pardoned Manafort and Flynn. There were actually strong cases, especially for Flynn, to be made for the pardons. Not the least of which that they, especially Flynn, were implicated by a wrongful attempt to bring down the President.

And those attempts to bring down the President were as harmful to "our democracy" as what you want to blame Trump for.

So Trump’s a Stable Genius and a constitutionalist…

Now tell me why Manafort was pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So Trump’s a Stable Genius and a constitutionalist…

Now tell me why Manafort was pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because, as you say, Trump is a Stable Genius. If that's not good enough for you, some would say that google is your friend. You might want to try a variety of right leaning sources as well as the lefties.

And I'm not your puppet dancing to the tune of your every demand.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Because, as you say, Trump is a Stable Genius. If that's not good enough for you, some would say that google is your friend. You might want to try a variety of right leaning sources as well as the lefties.

And I'm not your puppet dancing to the tune of your every demand.

But Putin had puppets

Senior FBI official who led 2016 investigation finding no link between Trump and Russia, Charles McGonigal, has now been arrested for taking and laundering money for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Deripaska was indicted last year and is being tried for a number of federal crimes.

Paul Manafort, Trump's 2016 campaign manager, also worked for Deripaska and then laundered the money, getting convicted -- before Trump pardoned him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Look out! Pete is now on a roll. He has totally taken over the thread, totally hijacked it. Expect more and more and more and more . . . He's flooding the zone with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . . . he can't be stopped . . . He's like a high speed train run amuck . . . no! he is like a John the Baptist in the desert and in the wilderness of the ignorant . . . educating us about Putin's puppets . . . about Deripaska . . . about Russian oligarchs . . . and Trump and Russia . . . in case we haven't heard the good news . . . we will be cleansed . . . and saved . . . in the baptismal waters of Pete the political baptist . . . get on your knees and thank the leftist heaven that he will not stop until Trump is crucified!

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Look out! Pete is now on a roll. He has totally taken over the thread, totally hijacked it. Expect more and more and more and more . . . He's flooding the zone with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . . . he can't be stopped . . . He's like a high speed train run amuck . . . no! he is like a John the Baptist in the desert and in the wilderness of the ignorant . . . educating us about Putin's puppets . . . about Deripaska . . . about Russian oligarchs . . . and Trump and Russia . . . in case we haven't heard the good news . . . we will be cleansed . . . and saved . . . in the baptismal waters of Pete the political baptist . . . get on your knees and thank the leftist heaven that he will not stop until Trump is crucified!

He has been promising us this for years

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

He has been promising us this for years

DOJ: 4 Oath Keepers Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for Jan. 6

Nothing happens overnight your hero might still get his jump suit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Look out! Pete is now on a roll. He has totally taken over the thread, totally hijacked it. Expect more and more and more and more . . . He's flooding the zone with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . . . he can't be stopped . . . He's like a high speed train run amuck . . . no! he is like a John the Baptist in the desert and in the wilderness of the ignorant . . . educating us about Putin's puppets . . . about Deripaska . . . about Russian oligarchs . . . and Trump and Russia . . . in case we haven't heard the good news . . . we will be cleansed . . . and saved . . . in the baptismal waters of Pete the political baptist . . . get on your knees and thank the leftist heaven that he will not stop until Trump is crucified!

with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . .

Spoken like a true cult member
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by wdmso

DOJ: 4 Oath Keepers Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for Jan. 6

Nothing happens overnight your hero might still get his jump suit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

[Pete F.]

Florida man is #^&#^&#^&#^&ting his pants about Special Counsel Jack Smith's work.

At 1 am, Trump ranted on "Truth social": "My Special Counsel (“PROSECUTOR”) is viciously harassing and bullying anyone and everyone in sight."
Trump’s scared, as he should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

What do you mean by "applied equally"?

He already has been fined $Ms for his crimes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . .

Spoken like a true cult member
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My "cult"?? is better than yours.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Florida man is #^&#^&#^&#^&ting his pants about Special Counsel Jack Smith's work.

At 1 am, Trump ranted on "Truth social": "My Special Counsel (“PROSECUTOR”) is viciously harassing and bullying anyone and everyone in sight."
Trump’s scared, as he should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Propaganda Pete tells us that Trump is scared. The cult of Propaganda Pete is scary.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Propaganda Pete tells us that Trump is scared. The cult of Propaganda Pete is scary.

Right out of Goebbels Nazi's propaganda playbook.

Accuse the other of that which you are guilty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Right out of Goebbels Nazi's propaganda playbook.

Accuse the other of that which you are guilty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's what you just did. (I back up my claim, as in post #110 in the Rons at it again thread.) And then you did it again in post #111 of that same thread.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's what you just did. (I back up my claim, as in post #110 in the Rons at it again thread.) And then you did it again in post #111 of that same thread.

Sure, as long as guns are unlimited, history is defined how you want, you define voting, they make books criminal, the only relationship that’s allowed to be read about is between a man and a woman and you’re not woke because reading, science and empathy are bad.
It’s easier to figure out once you realize that woke is a stand-in for the N word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure, as long as guns are unlimited,

I don't know what an unlimited gun is.

history is defined how you want,

Are you saying Black scholars define history the way they want?

you define voting,

Are you saying that Democrats define voting?

they make books criminal,

You mean putting people in jail if they own or sell a book?

the only relationship that’s allowed to be read about is between a man and a woman and you’re not woke because reading, science and empathy are bad.

Does the Republican agenda disallow you from reading about relations between different genders or sexes, or different animals or life forms? Does the Republican agenda disallow reading, or science, or empathy?

It’s easier to figure out once you realize that woke is a stand-in for the N word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what you've figured out, but the way you express it sure sounds like the vagueness of propaganda.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

Justice being applied equally is another right wing talking point.

Justice has never been applied equally because all cases aren’t equal..

Ya ok he’s not your hero.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not sure what you've figured out, but the way you express it sure sounds like the vagueness of propaganda.

A teacher giving a child a book determined by the state to be inappropriate is a class 3 felony in Floriduh under DeFascist.
You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?
Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

But I spout propaganda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device