The more I listen to Robert Mueller, the less respect I have for him. He has become a corrupt politician and has disgraced his career. There has been talk of Mueller being subpoenaed to testify before Congress. Nadler insists that Mueller wants to testify- privately.
“He is willing to make an opening statement, but he wants to testify in private,” Nadler said. “We’re saying we think it’s important for the American people to hear from him and to hear his answers to questions about the report.”
So do I. More than ever.
It is said that Barr and Mueller are old friends. If so, it is a curious relationship. Mueller has crossed Barr multiple times now.
Mueller apparently had discussions with Barr prior to the release of the report. Barr issued a statement about the report summarizing the findings. Barr was under no obligation to release the report but release it he did, with minor redactions. Once the report was released Barr was assailed non-stop by democrats as a liar. Pressure built on Mueller to make a statement. He did that the other day and went out before the press and lied.
But Mueller did not mince words on his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller explained longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.
“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller explained, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
Swiftly a statement was issued jointly by Barr and Mueller spokespersons disagreeing with what Mueller has said in his statement.
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.
Then Barr calmly added that Mueller could indeed have brought charges if he had a case.
Mueller is peddling bullsh*t and Barr is having none of it. But here’s a really critical point, and it’s a point that has long irritated the living crap out of me:
“The use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr said in an interview with CBS.
Russian disinformation paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC was used to mobilize America’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies against an American Presidential candidate. Let’s remember that when FBI lawyer Lisa Page feared that Trump might be elected, disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok said
“No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it”
Denying that there was a conspiracy against Trump is laughable, and Barr is on it despite plodding into headwinds:
But Barr, in an interview with CBS News that aired Friday, said he has more questions than answers at this point in the probe.
“Like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on,” Barr said, referring to the origins of the Russia probe. “And I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory.”
He added: “In fact, I probably have more questions and some of the facts that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”
Barr did not elaborate further on his findings, but added: “Things are just not jibing.”
Let’s get some answers. By all means let’s get some answers. Let’s start with Robert Mueller. Make him testify. Part 1 of the Mueller Report dealt with Russian collusion and conspiracy. Mueller concluded there realistically was none of either. Part 2 dealt with the possibility of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump over a crime he did not commit. So let’s have Muller answer some questions:
“Mr. Mueller, when did you determine there was no collusion or conspiracy?”
“Mr. Mueller, if you were operating under the presumption that you could not indict a sitting President for collusion what was the point of undertaking Part 2 of your investigation? Was it to provide democrats with a road map for impeachment?”
“Mr. Mueller, was a road map for impeachment to aid democrats part of your directive from Mr. Rosenstein in the Scope Memo?”
“Mr. Mueller, can you please explain how you came to choose so many ardent Trump haters to be on your team? Can you explain the justification for adding a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation to your team?”
“Mr. Mueller, why would you choose someone with such a dodgy past as Andrew Weissman to be on your team?”
“Mr. Mueller, you said in your statement that you could not indict the President based on the OLC opinion but AG Barr said you did not reach a conclusion irrespective of the OLC opinion. Who is lying?”
When Mueller wrote
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
It may be that Mueller knew that his potential obstruction case is garbage. Devin Nunes is pushing for release of all background source information, and it is well wort noting that at least some of the information has been altered:
The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee sent out a tweet critical of Mueller after federal prosecutors, in compliance with an order from a federal judge, released the transcript of a voicemail former Trump lawyer John Dowd left for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s lawyer Rob Kelner shortly after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
Mueller referenced parts of the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail in his final report about how Dowd asks for a “heads up” if Flynn knew information that “implicates” Trump after Flynn dropped from a joint defense agreement with the president. But, as a Twitter user points out, parts of the transcript that were left out, including Dowd saying his request was “not only for the president, but for the country,” he was not asking for confidential information, and he did not appear to be certain that Flynn had decided to cooperate with Mueller’s team.
“This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…,” Nunes tweeted in reply.
Barr had asserted that the DOJ had a different take on the analysis than did Mueller:
Barr told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford that the Department of Justice determined “many of the instances” Mueller found “would not amount to obstruction” as a matter of law.
“[W]e didn’t agree with … a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the Department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we applied what we thought was the right law,” he explained.
“The bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes,” Barr added. “He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either.”
Barr went on to say it is up to Mueller if he wants to testify before Congress, but he did say he does not think the line Mueller drew about sticking to his report is “the proper line.”
Inquiring minds want to know. No wonder Mueller doesn’t want to testify in public. Let Mueller testify.
In public.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Deplorable Me: We cant tell how the court will decide. I dont care if they look at Trump taxes as long as they are not made public, only those authorized see them, not aides. The personal bank and accounting records of the entire family goes too far, no legislative purpose at all.
@kitt:
Well, me either, but you know as well as I do that the entire point of gaining access to the records is to selectively leak bits to make Trump look bad, leak his business associates so they can be attacked and to attempt to cause irreparable damage to Trump both politically and personally.
My other problem is that liberals all happily accept the “privacy” protection even when public records are concerned. As we have seen, Greg will even stoop so low as to cite Hillary’s unfounded declaration that the 33,000 emails she destroyed, despite being subpoenaed, were her private information simply because she said so. No one else got to make an objective judgement on them and since they were mixed with official State Department emails, even classified information and, as such, belonged to the People until proven otherwise.
They don’t mind that the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans and Iranians saw all of Hillary’s emails; they don’t think the US government deserves to be able to archive them. They believe Hillary’s desire to avoid FOIA requests overrules US law.
Taking this one fact into account proves beyond doubt or debate that the demand for Trump’s taxes is nothing but a partisan attempt to smear Trump and, as such, should never be allowed.
No other President has been subjected to such scrutiny, further making it clear that this is nothing but pathetic desperation and an attempt to avoid being beaten in another election. They see the pitiful array of nincompoops they are offering up as candidates; a coup is their only chance.
@Deplorable Me: It is still up to the courts to decide if this is violating the 4th amendment, we can only hope they have respect for every individuals right to privacy.
I am sick of the total surveillence state, NY spent education dollars on total surveillence, let teach the kiddies to get used to Orwellian nightmare.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/05/30/new-york-school-district-testing-facial-recognition-technology/1285676001/
@Deplorable Me:
Greggie Goebbels also refuses to say he thinks Elijah Cummings and his wife should release their tax returns to prove there was no quid pro quo between Cummings and the corporations that donated to her (their?) 501(c)3 charity. Where did all that money go? Did it go into Elijah Cummings campaign fund? Did it go into their own bank account or pay for personal expenses? Greggie Goebbels doesn’t care. Cummings is a Democrat.
If it wasn’t for the policy of hypocrisy, the Democrats would not have a policy.
@retire05: They are pulling out the big guns and are calling John Dean to testify before congress, will the dig up Nixon to impeach him? Or is this breaking news from the 70s. Misty water colored memories….
@Deplorable Me:
Just when you think they can’t get any lower they always find a way. The area where I live used to be pretty much a Republican stronghold. Now it’s essentially Blue. In addition to crime going up, there has been a very noticeable change in the way people conduct themselves. They are much more rude and arrogant. They don’t signal when they turn or make lane changes. They always have the right-a-way at an intersection regardless of who got there first. Wave one into traffic and they won’t acknowledge it. You owe it to them. A red light means the next six people can turn left. They want to tell you how to run your life when most of the time their own lives are screwed up. The big fad in the local high school is being “gender fluid”. All of this is compliments of the white, liberal elitist “it’s all about me” mentality.
The left doesn’t need evidence. Look at this thread. It’s why they fawn over the likes of Lenin, Castro, and Che.
@Deplorable Me, #152:
Which other president has broken his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the nation by openly ordering subordinate government employees to knowingly break the law to evade such scrutiny? Which other president has ordered subordinates en masse to ignore the lawful subpoeans of a co-equal branch of government, essentially rendering constitutional checks and balances meaningless?
Most recently we’ve got Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson joining the line of of those giving Congress the finger at their master’s order. The Attorney General, whose primary duty is to represent the government as a whole in all legal matters, is ignoring a Congressional subpoena at the order of Donald Trump. Does Barr really need to be reminded that ignoring a Congressional subpoena is not actually a legal option? At a minimum, you have to show up.
No other president has been subjected to such scrutiny because no other president’s behavior has warranted such scrutiny. Allowing a president to use his power of office to elevate himself above the reach of the law is precisely how you lose a constitutional republic to authoritarian rule. That half of the country views the threat as a clown doesn’t lessen the danger. As we saw in 2016, not taking the danger seriously only heightens it.
@Greg:
Um… Obama, for one. Fast and Furious? IRS scandal? Handing out immigration amnesty? Refusing to enforce immigration laws? Refusing to enforce Marriage Act? Using Hillary’s illegal email account, then obstructing justice to protect himself? However, with all that, a blatant violation of privacy is still not an option, just as it is not an option now due only to you and your Democrat fellow crybabies hating Trump because he won an election.
Executive privilege. Suck it.
It is illegal to release Grand Jury testimony and information. Suck it.
Now you have the opportunity to answer the original question; what is the justification to see Trump’s IRS returns? There IS NONE. You cite the 1924 law, yet you say that is enacted due to justification though you claim no justification is necessary. What IS the justification?
@Greg:
BHO even covered that guy with executive privilege. Had reporter arrested, You-tube artist jailed to cover his lies. Hard drives of IRS employees destroyed. Theres more much much more including using an alias to email a non secure server of the SOS, lied about not knowing about that server. BHO also had a vast spying network, Sanger, who has worked for the Times in Washington for two decades, said, “This is most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.” Many leak investigations include lie-detector tests for government officials with access to the information at issue.
@kitt: Careful, you’ll stain the golden idol.
@Deplorable Me, #158:
You don’t seem to be capable of grasping the distinction between a president prioritizing the enforcement of applicable laws in a context involving congressional inaction and limited resources, and a Chief Executive ordering his subordinates to themselves break a law for his own personal benefit and protection. The distinction really isn’t all that subtle.
Section Three of The Defense of Marriage Act—it’s central feature—was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States. I guess Obama’s understanding of the Constitution proved to be better than that of the GOP-controlled Congress. This isn’t surprising, given that he was formerly a teacher of Constitutional Law at one of the nation’s more prestigious law schools. Trump mainly understands law from a lifetime of trying to work around it and to evade countless law suits, hiring teams of dodgy lawyers for that purpose. One of his perennial solutions for slipping out of trouble has been the payoff—also known as the out of court settlement. It must have come as a shock to him when it was explained that this method is neither routine nor acceptable when you’re a president.
@Greg:
But Obama was not enforcing it BEFORE the Supreme Court ruled. He had already decided which laws he would abide by, just like illegal immigration, enacting Obamacare, lying about IRS targeting, Benghazi, protecting Hillary, spying on innocent citizens… on and on and on and on. It was OK then. Now, however, standing up against endless illegal investigations and demands for information, all based on lies and false allegations, is wrong?
All Obama ever learned about the Constitution was how to circumvent it. That was how he practiced it, too.
By the way, without a legitimate legal necessity, you aren’t getting Trump’s tax returns.
@Greg:
You come so close to being correct, Obama should have forced Hillary to be in compliance to security measures, not abet her. He knew about the spying and leaking he wasnt above lie detectors if he didnt like the leak. But unmasking and leaking that was a subtle difference of getting the DNC a dirty win in an election.
@kitt: Greg only expects laws to be imposed on Republicans. It’s no problem that there is clear evidence Elijah and his good wife are scamming charities; he is more interested in digging into someone’s privacy to see IF there is any evidence of any crime.
@Deplorable Me:
I’m not getting them, but the House Ways and Means Committee eventually will, because providing them is required by law. Mnuchin—who has yet to produce the imaginary legal opinion he cited—will be held in contempt of Congress. It’s coming. Examples will be made, and Trump’s toadies will suddenly run for cover. Maybe a few will land in jail, or maybe they’ll all turn tail if Barr blinks. Barr has got to know where the courts will stand on flagrantly ignoring existing laws and Congressional subpoenas, because any attorney would have to be stupid not to. I don’t believe he’s stupid.
They could get them right now from the state of New York, but they’re not going to let anybody off the hook by doing so. They’re going to let them dig themselves into even deeper legal holes.
@Greg:
Just shows this is ONLY a political game they dont really need them. They dont think there is anything to find.
They play games while immigration needs reforming, while the budget waits..what a pile they are.
@kitt: Absolutely. On the one hand, Greg says no necessity is required and then he says this has not been wielded against any other President because there has been no necessity to do so. Nothing but blatant political fishing and they will fail trying to trample the Constitution.
Trump in interview in England with Piers Morgan—asked if he regretted not serving in Viet Nam said ” No I WAS NEVER A FAN of that war–very far away–no one ever heard of it.
This from our CIC—COWARD—what kind of example does it set for today’s military?
Don’t deflect with talk of Clinton—What do you Trump supporters think of this from our current CIC?
@another vet: What the hell are you trying to say? Maybe they are acting like our current POTUS-who possesses not a modicum of civility.
How bout DT cozying up with Kim., Putin and other authoritarian butchers–you cool with that?
DEP#150—-Barr said Mueller neither charged or cleared DT of obstruction therefor there was no obstruction–WHAT?? That is simply a foolish conclusion on your part Dep
@Richard Wheeler: Would you believe him if he said,” Yes it was one of my deepest regrets?” Get off the old soap box you are more than willing to vote for Creepy Joe, he also dodged out.
Its a time to honor men like this super hero https://nypost.com/2019/06/05/97-year-old-army-vet-marks-d-day-anniversary-with-parachute-jump/
DT was much less cozy with Putin than the last admin, giving the American technology to build their super sonic weaponry, abandoning missile defense shield in Europe.
With the cozy label, not diplomacy the 2 halves of Korea are talking after 70 years quite an accomplishment but you have to put a mindless leftist spin on it. Should he have restarted the hot war, now that you have no skin in the game?
@kitt: What Trump said is an insult to Viet Nam Vets—an insult to all who have gone to far away wars to fight for our great country.
Can this clown get any sleazier? Don’t answer that.
@Richard Wheeler: @Richard Wheeler:
He’s been far harder on any of them than your holiness was. Remind me again of how many Russians were killed in Syria on his watch and how scrapping the missile defense system in Poland sent a clear message to Putin about our resolve? How about all that bribe money given to Iran. Remember how they humiliated our Sailors and Kerry thanked them when they were released?
Keep changing history to cover for the messiah’s failures.
@another vet: Sorry AV—continuing to talk about former Presidents as a deflection from the actions of your guy–cop out
Ask again about your tirade on the “Dems” in your neighborhood—was that meant to be comedic?
How bout Trump’s V.N comment to Piers Morgan–as a Vet are you OK with it?
@Richard Wheeler: What could he have said to make you happy? So he might as well tell his truth. You would take anything he answered, to a stupid question on honoring D Day, as an insult.
You went further back in history than we have. You dont like to compare someone you voted for with someone we did.
@kitt: It’s not about making me happy—-he insulted all those who served in Viet Nam—answered our countries call in time of war–
My folks used to remind me often of Thumper’s mothers’—“If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything” Obviously The Donald never got such parental advice.
@Richard Wheeler: He expressed his opinion, he said nothing about those that served, it was still a stupid, inappropriate question to ask. If it did not offend you were you told it was offensive by your tv?
@Richard Wheeler:
Clinton.
I remember those who spit on returning Vietnam veterans and called them “baby killers”. Liberals. Democrats. The left. Clinton said he “loathed” the military; that would be the very same military that was sent to Vietnam and spit on when they came back.
Trump is honoring the military and taking care of veterans. NO Democrat had done that. It’s one of the things I despise about Democrats.
@kitt: I’m a Viet Nam vet–of course it offended me —-I believe his stupid answer offended large majority of vets.
AV—If you recall I blasted Obama for failure to keep his red line pledge in Syria–no messiah of mine—-is Trump your Messiah?—seems you, Dep, Kitt and other’s here have a strange attachment to him.
@Deplorable Me: You didn’t serve makes sense you’re OK with Trump’s statement–you have-no right to demean those who did—most of whom were probably Dems and Indies
All President’s in my lifetime have honored our military and our Vets—-Trump has done no more for us than previous Presidents—he just brags more.-
@Richard Wheeler:
Explain the part where he insulted veterans.
@Deplorable Me: First raise in pay in 10 years, veterans choice, rules of engagement changes. Nothing is ever enough.
@Richard Wheeler:
What I asked was, what was the part where he insulted veterans? Also, though I have EVERY right to demean whomever I wish, provide for me the statement I made where I demeaned anyone that has served.
Don’t make me ask 10 times, as everyone usually has to do to get you to answer a simple question; what did Trump say that insulted anyone that served in Vietnam for their service or where I demeaned anyone that served.
@kitt: Yeah, veterans are finally getting help at the VA and Trump is doing all he can to get active military as much as they can get and people like Rich hammer him for it. Hatred for Trump overrides benefits for our active military and veterans.
@Deplorable Me: @Deplorable Me: You’re question as stupid as his answer DEP -neither of you served so you don’t understand the pride and the brotherhood.
IMO you demean Vets by accepting Trump’s comments–Which really shouldn’t surprise me.
Watch a video of the landing tomorrow—and #184 stop crying “denied Hillary’ ??
@Richard Wheeler: Once again… incapable of answering for a remark you made out of biased hatred that had no basis in fact.
Admittedly, a question asked about a stupid statement would, by definition, be stupid. “Waa, waa, waa, I was denied Hillary and I don’t like Trump, so everything he does is stupid. Waa, waa, waa.”
@kitt:
Trump cannot be allowed to rise above the law, as he seems to believe he can. So far as any pretense of a democratic republic goes, that is the existential issue of the day. Putting Trump in his place is a matter of preserving the constitutional balance between three co-equal branches of government. He has made it so. I prefer a constitutional solution to that problem. Providing it is the responsibility and duty of Congress.
Somebody should poke the GOP to see if they can detect any signs of life. They’re breathing, but they may be asleep or brain dead. They’re letting Trump methodically wreck anything that threatens him or gets in his way.
What has the Trump administration done about Russian election meddling and their social media efforts to break our nation into pieces? His staff is afraid to even mention it.
@Greg: We are a Constitutional Republic, Individual rights and limited government power, we are not a democratic republic. Learn the difference Brother please, every law that congress passes or has passed is not constitutional, I wish every one would pass through a supreme court that honored our founding and did not have any agenda, but thats not how it happens.
You are so close to being correct at times but somewhere there is a little disconnect, one that cheers on tyranny and ultimate government powers to grant rights, or take them away. Liberty offers nothing but freedom the government doesnt owe anyone anything but to protect those freedoms and secure our country. Being born equal, then its up to the government to get out of the way so you can earn whatever rewards you strive for. Not to take what you have earned for the benefit of others. To insure everyone has the rights written in the Constitution, its our freedom contract, it covers everyone great and small.
@Richard Wheeler:
Nope. The cop out is you applying two sets of standards- one for you and your comrades and another one for the rest of us whom you don’t like and not wanting to be called out on it. I’ll ask you again, when you look down on the rest of us from your high pedestal, what do you see?
Yeah, you really “blasted” him alright. If I recall it was more like a two sentence passing criticism. No messiah? Remember 2008 and the temples you people erected to him making him out like he was some sort of a god? You constantly fawned over him on this site. Remember how you came here seemingly in tears when Trump accused him of “eavesdropping”? Looking like you are going be proven wrong big time on that one.
No temples for Trump on my end. I don’t worship anyone.
It was an accurate reflection about how much more arrogant the people in my neighborhood have become since it’s gone Blue. I’ve lived here for over 50 years so I think I can recognize a difference as have others who live around here.
Never heard it so I can’t comment. Unlike you, I don’t obsess over everything Trump says and does. Post a link with the entire conversation in question (not a partial like you did with Mueller) and I’ll be better able to answer your question not that you deserve it given how you repeatedly run from questions others ask of you.
@kitt: Reading a book about the GESTAPO, it occurred to me that many of the worst actors were otherwise normal people that could not handle the lure of absolute power. Not only did the State not punish abhorrent behavior but it encouraged it.
Does anyone believe these Democrats would act any differently with absolute power… something they are desperately clamoring to achieve. How they carried out the the illegal spying on Trump, the investigations and now trying to trample the Constitution to get at Trump’s personal information solely for the purpose of seeing if there is SOMETHING… ANYTHING they can use against him.
@another vet: Seems you hear what you wanna hear AV—at least you don’t condone it after you hear it—how otherwise intelligent folks condone this guy’s behavior is tough for the majority of Americans to understand.
btw–I answer questions–usually ignored or misunderstood I’m afraid.
Dep Absolute power—Seems that’s Trump’s objective –screw Congress and load The Court–if I lose in 2020 I MAY JUST STAY LOL
@Richard Wheeler: I cant imagine being a President that every sentence that comes out of his mouth is parsed by people whos job it is to hate him and project that out to the public.
His behavior? What behavior what has he actually done that is so horrible?
His demeanor and attitude dont count, what terrible thing has he done in his Presidency that is so bad?
@Richard Wheeler:
How anyone can support the abuses of power and criminality of the past administration is tough for the majority of Americans to understand.
Coming from someone who quoted one sentence of Mueller’s statement about obstruction in order to accuse Trump of obstruction while ignoring the rest which clearly stated “no conclusion” is comical.
@another vet: from Rich
If there is an opening is it not his job to nominate a replacement Judge?
Screw congress? WTH things congress has voted yea on for years repeatedly now they are against because Trump ran on it? How can a self proclaimed political junkie miss that?
Absolute Power? He is the President of the United States that is pretty powerful, how much more powerful can you get?
@kitt, #186:
We are, in fact, a democratic republic, by virtue of a constitution that was written to make us such. Our system combines the attributes of both.
It seems to be a fad lately to pretend that we’re entirely one or the other, or that the fundamental attributes of one are somehow exclusive of the fundamental attributes of the other. This is a bogus assertion, which comes down to deceptively playing with definitions for political purposes. Current-day republicans are afraid of democracy.
The people directly elect their representatives to Congress, one of three co-equal branches of government. That’s an entirely democratic process. The people indirectly elect their president, by way of an electoral college process whereby pre-selected party electors are invested with the power to cast an electoral college vote as the result of each state’s popular vote outcome. That’s representative democracy, which to one degree or another is more typical of republics. The democratic attributes were carefully and purposely balanced by the Founders against the republican attributes. We’re partially both, but totally neither.
@kitt: Three separate but EQUAL: branches—but you know that—Trump seeks absolute control–We the people will not allow it Kitt..
Greg can school you a little longer and better— I remain a devotee of KISS
@Greg: Dont misinterpret there is a difference, the elected are servants not rulers, you ascribe to them more power than the contract allows. Your party is doing its best to kill the electoral process, allowing more populated states rule he roost. looking at Cali and NY I dont want the country run like that, they are a disaster. I am not saying we dont have any democracy in the mix we do vote for our representatives there is a serious problem, no way for the people to recall our reps when they fail in that representation. It was in the original drafts but they decided against it, even then to much democracy was frightening to to them.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington DC, Illinois, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont. all will give their electoral votes to the popular winner, all are blue states shredding the Constitution.
You may not like originalists or the inflexible way we have, I consider the Republic a legacy an inheritance so much more precious than petty political bickering. As you can see Democrats have become a danger to that inheritance with their scheming for power, throwing away their states voters to mob rule.
@Richard Wheeler: How has he done this what bills has he vetoed? President Trump signed the first veto of his administration , rejecting a measure that would have blocked his declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, its bad, its really bad it is an emergency the border patrol capacity is overwhelmed. They all voted for a fence then when it is needed the most they resist.
The Constitution vests the President with Executive Power. That power reaches its zenith when wielded to protect national security.
What would you do?
@Richard Wheeler:
You’ve no proof of this. Just more partisan, media-fed memes from your undiscriminating brain.
“We the people” includes Trump voters – the ones who won the last election.
What “we” will allow is not subject to one Leftist’s indoctrination.
Trump wins the EC and popular vote in 2020.
@Greg: We are, in fact, a Constitutional Republic. Modern Democrat propaganda aims to muddy this, as words are of great value to the Left’s childish propaganda machine.
This has nothing to do with the names of our two dominant political parties.
In action, rather than the words, modern Democrats oppose the democratic process and are not “democratic” in the generally accepted sense. In 2016, the DNC supplanted the democratic process to favor a pre-selected candidate. This is verifiable, and fact.
The Democratic Party has also defied the verifiable and factual outcome of the 2016 presidential election by falsifying evidence in an effort to take unlawful power, thus also proving they have moved away from free and fair elections.
Liberal media is awash with attempts to somehow lay claim to the US government bearing the title of “democratic” in some way, as a propaganda device and nothing more.
@Nathan Blue: Rich comes from a very Democrat state where they dont deal in solving problems they spend tons of money on non solutions, homelessness, trash, rats, disease, people crapping right in downtowns on the main drags they now are overwhelmed. A once beautiful state, a tourist attraction, the parks all tagged with gang symbols. Conventions are now booking elsewhere.
I know he is an arrogant lil sh!t he speaks for all vets and we the people. He should turn off his TV and walk the downtown streets of LA and San Fran. Kayak the shores by the golden gate.
Maybe his city will accept 1 months worth of “asylum seekers”.
Good night Nathan time to let the dogs out.
@Nathan Blue: Trump loses popular vote again–Dems easily take back traditionally Blue Michigan and Pennsylvania—There it is.
Kit -Talk about 2 much time on TV—Where do you get this crap about Cal decline—still beautiful–surf in the morning ski in the afternoon-if one likes–I got Catalina sunsets and warm ocean breezes. 5 minutes to work–5 minutes to the gym
San Diego–“America’s finest city” one hour south–Got my Marines 5 miles south—life is good out here—try to get to Europe once a year—Spain, Italy, Greece,France—all beautiful countries with good people
Come visit any time we got a guest room for you