Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
AZPaul3 writes:
The Democrats are out to get him.
I guess I'd want to add some reasons. I think those unhappy with Trump would say they're concerned about the threats he poses to the country, its Democratic institutions, the rule of law, our standing in the world, morality, fairness, mom and apple pie.
If he loses?
Then the rest of the legal system gets to rip him apart. He is about to lose his fortune, his properties, his now tarnished name, all of it. By the time his enemies (in business and in law) get through with him . they may never be through with him.
Your boy is toast as soon as he loses his presidential shield. That’s how much he’s made people hate him.
Yeah, that seems likely. When all that was known about him was that he was a flamboyant real estate developer and TV personality then he was safe, but his actions in office have brought so much scrutiny and so much is known now that he'll likely spend the rest of his life in court. Civil suits will take his fortune (the small fortune that exists in reality, not the billions he brags about), and even prison seems possible.
Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
Faith writes:
Actions in office? They were threatening to impeach him BEFORE he was in office.
I don't know which "they" you are talking about, since both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans his first 2 years.
And he went right ahead and committed multiple crimes, some in plain sight of everyone and is daring them to impeach him now.
If he was innocent he would insist on Mueller testifying and would release his tax returns. That's how smart he is, spends a life as a cheap con man and tax fraud and then run for President, and thinks no one is going to investigate and uncover who he is.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
Tanypteryx writes:
Faith writes:
Actions in office? They were threatening to impeach him BEFORE he was in office.
I don't know which "they" you are talking about, since both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans his first 2 years.
About the timing of the first calls for impeachment, there may be some misremembering involved since they came so soon after Trump took office. From the Wikipedia entry on Maxine Waters:
quote:Waters began to call for the impeachment of Trump shortly after he took office. In February 2017, Waters said that Trump was "leading himself" to possible impeachment because of his conflicts of interests and that he was creating "chaos and division".[74] In September 2017, while giving a eulogy at Dick Gregory's funeral, she said that she was "cleaning out the White House" and that "when I get through with Donald Trump, he's going to wish he had been impeached."[75] In October 2017, she said the U.S. Congress had enough evidence against Trump to 'be moving on impeachment', in reference to Russian collusion allegations during the 2016 Presidential election, and that Trump "has openly obstructed justice in front of our face."[76]
The source of the misinformation might also be conservative opinion programs. Fox News gets most things right, while their opinion programs like Hannity and Carlson and so forth are full of misinformation.
That Trump is inching closer to impeachment (it's his own actions that are driving it) is no surprise. Most who had the measure of the man couldn't imagine him making it through four years without committing a number of impeachable offenses.
Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
WHY ON EARTH THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION AT ALL SINCE INVESTIGATING THE CLAIM OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS SUPPOSEDLY THE WHOLE POINT OF SUCH AN INVESTIGATION.
Mueller investigated criminal behavior. That was the point.
With all the innuendo, however, insinuating criminality where he'd found none,
No innuendo. Facts. Undeniable criminal behavior. And a policy that Mueller felt prevented him from acting on that undeniable criminal behavior.
Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
McConnell would never allow a trial in the Senate. But impeachment could bring out many more incriminating facts that would sway some undecideds without affecting Faith and her ilk at all.
quote:Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.
Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.
And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.
quote:First, in the most direct way, raising tariffs on Mexico will mean a tax increase of up to 25% on American families and businesses purchasing any products from Mexico, one of the U.S.' leading trade partners.
Secondly, this threat comes as the Trump administration was jump-starting the approval process for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump previously touted as a major trade victory, but that has yet to be officially ratified. This will surely disrupt that process.
Thirdly, the whole justification for the previous administration's [should be "administration's previous "-- JonF] tariffs has been that they were all part of a broader strategy to negotiate better trade deals. Yet in this case, Trump is trying to lump trade in with cracking down on illegal immigration, which is a separate issue even if it could be argued there is a relationship between the two.
Fourthly, it's difficult to see how this would facilitate containing illegal Mexican immigration. The surest way that Mexico has to reducing the desire of Mexicans to leave for America is to improve the Mexican economy, which would be immensely more difficult in the midst of a trade war with the U.S.
Fifthly, it's unclear what the metric will be for determining whether "the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied." Does that mean no illegal immigration from Mexico? A reduction by a certain percentage? I suppose we'll have to leave that to the White House staffers tasked with translating Trump's insane tweets into official policy language.
All direct quotes.
ABE in fact NAFTA, which is still in force, forbids these tariffs. But Trump is hell-bent on convincing the world that the US cannot be trusted to honor commitments.
it seems worth it to me to apply some kind of pressure on Mexico to stop the flood of illegals.
Legal asylum seekers mostly.
What do you expect Mexico to do in a month? In two? In six?
Yes, the wrongful convictions are certainly a strong reason to reject the death penalty where there is any doubt at all.
But the justice system is not based on "any doubt at all". It's supposedly based on "reasonable doubt' and there was no reasonable doubt, apparently, in the cases I mentioned. In reality, of course, the justice system is based very much on emotion rather than reason - which is why there is so much racism in the justice system.
Faith writes:
... in principle it is right to punish murderers by death.
Not according to the Bible:
quote:Genesis 4:15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
quote:John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Yes I know beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for finding a person guilty. My point was that since there have been so many mistakes made, finding innocent people guilty, that for the death penalty we should be holding out for no doubt at all.
You left out what God said to Noah after the Flood: that whoever kills a man shall be killed by man, because God made man in His image.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
