Jump to content

republiKlans have no intention of allowing democracy, the Rule of Law or the Constitution to continue


Recommended Posts

 None of those work in their favor.... Their motivations are control and money, and thats it!

 

Before this Lying POS, nixon and raygun both interfered with US foreign policy for their personal political benefit prior to their election.

 

How easily America forgets..and the rednecks could care less

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, benson13 said:

 None of those work in their favor.... Their motivations are control and money, and thats it!

 

Before this Lying POS, nixon and raygun both interfered with US foreign policy for their personal political benefit prior to their election.

 

How easily America forgets..and the rednecks could care less

 

Poor thing.


Sticks his HEAD UP HIS ASS when it comes to all the SCHITSTAIN DHUMOSCHIT CORRUPTION and has NO FACTS to back up his claims of "Republican" issues that his HANDLERS AND MANIPULATORS BLEW UP HIS ASS!!!

 

Funny as hell watching this ABJECT MORON try to sound more than anything about STUPID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, benson13 said:

 None of those work in their favor.... Their motivations are control and money, and thats it!

 

Before this Lying POS, nixon and raygun both interfered with US foreign policy for their personal political benefit prior to their election.

 

How easily America forgets..and the rednecks could care less

Like Kennedy asking Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WILLIAM BARR IS TOTALLY UNFIT TO BE AG

 

Last month, at a Federalist Society event, the attorney general delivered an ode to essentially unbridled executive power, dismissing the authority of the legislative and judicial branches — and the checks and balances at the heart of America’s constitutional order. As others have pointed out, Barr’s argument rests on a flawed view of U.S. history. To me, his attempts to vilify the president’s critics sounded more like the tactics of an unscrupulous criminal defense lawyer than a U.S. attorney general.

 

When, in the same speech, Barr accused “the other side” of “the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law,” he exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official. Even more troubling — and telling — was a later (and little-noticed) section of his remarks, in which Barr made the outlandish suggestion that Congress cannot entrust anyone but the president himself to execute the law.

 

In Barr’s view, sharing executive power with anyone “beyond the control of the president” (emphasis mine), presumably including a semi-independent Cabinet member, “contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person.” This is a stunning declaration not merely of ideology but of loyalty: to the president and his interests. It is also revealing of Barr’s own intent: to serve not at a careful remove from politics, as his office demands, but as an instrument of politics — under the direct “control” of President Trump.

 

Not long after Barr made that speech, he issued what seemed to be a bizarre threat to anyone who expresses insufficient respect for law enforcement, suggesting that “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.” No one who understands — let alone truly respects — the impartial administration of justice or the role of law enforcement could ever say such a thing. It is antithetical to the most basic tenets of equality and justice, and it undermines the need for understanding between law enforcement and certain communities and flies in the face of everything the Justice Department stands for.

 

It’s also particularly ironic in light of the attorney general’s comments this week, in which he attacked the FBI and the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General — two vital components of his own department. Having spent the majority of my career in public service, I found it extraordinary to watch the nation’s chief law enforcement official claim — without offering any evidence — that the FBI acted in “bad faith” when it opened an inquiry into then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign. As a former line prosecutor, U.S. attorney and judge, I found it alarming to hear Barr comment on an ongoing investigation, led by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, into the origins of the Russia probe. And as someone who spent six years in the office Barr now occupies, it was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report — based on an exhaustive review of the FBI’s conduct — using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered.

 

When appropriate and justified, it is the attorney general’s duty to support Justice Department components, ensure their integrity and insulate them from political pressures. His or her ultimate loyalty is not to the president personally, nor even to the executive branch, but to the people — and the Constitution — of the United States.

 

Career public servants at every level of the Justice Department understand this — as do leaders such as FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Their fidelity to the law and their conduct under pressure are a credit to them and the institutions they serve.

 

Others, like Durham, are being tested by this moment. I’ve been proud to know John for at least a decade, but I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.

This is certainly true of Barr, who was until recently a widely respected lawyer. I and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of the department and a protector of the rule of law.

 

Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage.

 

The American people deserve an attorney general who serves their interests, leads the Justice Department with integrity and can be entrusted to pursue the facts and the law, even — and especially — when they are politically inconvenient and inconsistent with the personal interests of the president who appointed him. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as such an attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, benson13 said:

 None of those work in their favor.... Their motivations are control and money, and thats it!

 

Before this Lying POS, nixon and raygun both interfered with US foreign policy for their personal political benefit prior to their election.

 

How easily America forgets..and the rednecks could care less

 

This is MAGA country, boy.

You need to get use to that fact. 

Because you are going to live with it......for 5 more yrs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, benson13 said:

 None of those work in their favor.... Their motivations are control and money, and thats it!

 

Before this Lying POS, nixon and raygun both interfered with US foreign policy for their personal political benefit prior to their election.

 

How easily America forgets..and the rednecks could care less

"Clinton Donors Charged In Massive Campaign Finance Scheme"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Z09 said:

Hey Benny..

How about Obama trying to influence Israel's election?

How about when dems wrote Ukraine urging them to investigate Trump?

 

+10 !!

100% correct !!

Obama tried to take down Netanyahu.   And failed !!  (Thank God).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the letter at issue did not actually demand an investigation into Trump or even compel initiation of any investigation, we rank the claim that Democrats asked Ukraine to “investigate Trump” in 2018 as false.

 

Factual Problems

Several reasons exist why the above tweet and associated sentiment are incorrect and misleading. At the top of that list is the fact that the letter in question did not concern a request to “investigate Trump,” nor did it request the opening of any investigation.

 
 

Instead, it requested information on why Ukrainian special prosecutor Serhiy Horbatyuk (who serves in a special prosecutor role charged with investigating corruption cases linked to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich) had been “prohibited” from “issuing subpoenas for evidence or interviewing witnesses” in four existing investigations into former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. Manafort, prior to joining the Trump campaign, had worked as a political consultant for Yanukovich and his political party. The four investigations involved money that flowed either to Manafort for this consulting work or to a law firm working with Manafort and others to improve Yanukovich’s image in the West. They did not involve Trump.

The three Democratic senators — then-Foreign Affairs Committee members Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy — were responding to a May 2, 2018, New York Times report that the four Manafort investigations in Ukraine were specifically singled out from a docket of nearly 3,000 corruption cases in Horbatyuk’s portfolio to be blocked from issuing subpoenas and interviewing witnesses. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his charge to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, was investigating Manafort in part because of concerns that he owed substantial funds to Russian oligarchs as a result of this consulting work, potentially giving them leverage over him as he ran Trump’s campaign. The reason Ukrainian officials impeded the investigation was no secret, according to the Times — it was to placate the Trump administration, which opposed the Mueller probe:

Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Parliament who is an ally of [now former] President Petro O. Poroshenko, readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manafort’s activities “in the long-term box.”

“In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials,” Mr. Ariev said in an interview. “We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.”

These discussions came at a complicated time for Ukraine, a country that has been fighting Russian aggression and that had been in the process of securing arms from the United States. “The decision to halt the investigations by an anti-corruption prosecutor was handed down as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins,” the Times reported.

Far from requesting an “investigation”, the senators requested answers to three specific questions from a specific Ukrainian government official:

  1. Has your office taken any steps to restrict cooperation with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? If so, why?
  2. Did any individual from the Trump Administration, or anyone acting on its behalf, encourage Ukrainian government or law enforcement officials not to cooperate with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
  3. Was the Mueller probe raised in any way during discussions between your government and U.S. officials, including around the meeting of Presidents Trump and Poroshenko in New York in 2017?

Manafort broadly admitted to involvement in activities related to those four Ukrainian probes via a September 2018 guilty plea.

A Flawed Comparison

Even ignoring the allegedly implied quid pro quo in the Trump-Zelensky call, a comparison between the senators’ request for information from the chief Ukrainian law enforcement official and Trump’s requests of Zelensky is problematic.

As senators on the Committee on Foreign Relations, which not only provides oversight for arms deals but also general oversight of America’s relationships with its allies, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy were acting within their constitutional rights and obligations as official representatives of the U.S. government with oversight responsibility over the executive branch.

Conversely, in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, Trump explicitly requested that the Ukrainian president meet with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani — an unelected private citizen without a security clearance or oversight from anyone but Trump — to initiate investigations into a disparate set of claims whose sole unifying feature is that they concern Trump’s political rivals: the Democratic National Committee and the Biden family.

Because the letter at issue did not actually demand an investigation into Trump or even compel initiation of any investigation, we rank the claim that Democrats asked Ukraine to “investigate Trump” in 2018 as false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...