Impeachment Hearings

[Dill]

(02-11-2020, 06:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: The problem is good people are resigning because the bad/complicit people are running things.

But the minions are getting their judges so why should they worry about the DOJ.

Top Mueller prosecutor Aaron S.J. Zelinsky resigned from Roger Stone’s case, effective immediately, he told the court in a filing, after the Justice Department announced that it planned to change the recommendation to give Stone a lighter sentence, per @kpolantz

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 11, 2020

Agree.  Resigning or being FIRED. That leaves us the dregs, the yes men.

[GMDino]

(02-11-2020, 06:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Agree.  Resigning or being FIRED. That leaves us the dregs, the yes men.

More heads on pikes for not breaking laws....

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/trump-fires-defense-official-refusing-to-break-law-elaine-mccusker.html

Quote:The New York Post reports that the administration is retaliating against Elaine McCusker, whose nomination for Pentagon comptroller and chief financial officer has been pulled.



What’s especially chilling about this move is the reason for the retaliation. McCusker is losing her job because she attempted to follow the law. There’s no cover story to rationalize it. That is the cover story. “This administration needs people who are committed to implementing the president’s agenda, specifically on foreign policy, and not trying to thwart it,” a White House official tells the paper.


McCusker’s crime is quite literally having attempted to follow the law. Over the summer, the Office of Management and Budget was trying to hold up aid for Ukraine that Congress had passed into law, because it was trying to extort Ukraine to investigate Trump’s rivals. Defense Department officials, who were supposed to allocate the funds, attempted to implement the policy. Just Security obtained the email chain through the Freedom of Information Act.


The emails show McCusker advising budget officials as to what the law said. She was not acting especially rigid about it. As Just Security’s summary notes, “The emails show officials bending over backwards to make every conceivable accommodation to keep the process moving without actually being able to obligate the funding.” One message shows McCusker writing to another official, “We need to continue to give the WH has [sic] much decision space as possible, but am concerned we have not officially documented the fact that we can not promise full execution at this point.” That is, she was trying to do everything in her power to give White House officials room to set the policy as they saw fit, without violating the law.

Importantly, the Government Accountability Office later examined the question, and found that McCusker was right. Holding up the aid was indeed illegal. (It’s not complicated: Congress passed a law providing the aid, so refusing to carry it out would obviously violate it.)

Other stuff worth reading at the link.

[GMDino]

Asked about Roger Stone, Trump says he has an “absolute right” to tell the Justice Department what to do pic.twitter.com/AZRv9Aff7P

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 11, 2020

 

[Belsnickel]

This is what it looks like when the checks and balances break down in our government. We have a POTUS that is acting like an autocrat.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-11-2020, 11:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is what it looks like when the checks and balances break down in our government. We have a POTUS that is acting like an autocrat.

Did all those boomer tea party fucknuts get geriatric diabetes and are unable to stand up for all those principles they claimed to hold so dear?

[GMDino]

(02-11-2020, 11:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is what it looks like when the checks and balances break down in our government. We have a POTUS that is acting like an autocrat.

"acting"?

It's only acting if he wasn't getting away with it 100%



Remember, there was a time when some (not me) thought Barr would bring some kind of "normalcy" to the DOJ because he "cared" about...something.

[GMDino]

Breaking: All four prosecutors in Roger Stone’s case have asked to withdraw, raising questions about politicization at Justice Dept. https://t.co/z2ARnjZQcI

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 11, 2020

 

[Belsnickel]

There will be many people that will dismiss these recent events with the Stone case as much ado about nothing. Indeed, it is within the purview of the AG and POTUS to get involved in such things. They have that authority. The long held norms in this country, though, is that justice is carried out in a fair and non-partisan way. This interference in that process throws further doubt into the ability for our justice system to actually carry out justice.

These sentencing recommendations weren't just made by these prosecutors. This was a significant enough case that they would have had to pass muster with the US Attorney's Office and DOJ central, itself, before being given to the judge. That's how these processes work. The DOJ would not have been left in the dark on this so that this occurred when it did is highly questionable and, IMO, warrants investigations from the IG, and the Judiciary Committees of Congress.

When partisan politics taints our judicial system it is a threat to our democracy. I know it sounds like everything happening these days is, but there is a reason for that. Trump and the GOP are not acting like we live in a democratic society and they are tearing down the walls that hold it up in this country. You know what kinds of leaders interfere in the judicial process to favor their allies? Despots, autocrats, dictators, those sorts of leaders. This is not the action of a democratic leader if this was a directive from Trump (or something Barr did to please his boss).

[GMDino]

(02-12-2020, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There will be many people that will dismiss these recent events with the Stone case as much ado about nothing. Indeed, it is within the purview of the AG and POTUS to get involved in such things. They have that authority. The long held norms in this country, though, is that justice is carried out in a fair and non-partisan way. This interference in that process throws further doubt into the ability for our justice system to actually carry out justice.

These sentencing recommendations weren't just made by these prosecutors. This was a significant enough case that they would have had to pass muster with the US Attorney's Office and DOJ central, itself, before being given to the judge. That's how these processes work. The DOJ would not have been left in the dark on this so that this occurred when it did is highly questionable and, IMO, warrants investigations from the IG, and the Judiciary Committees of Congress.

When partisan politics taints our judicial system it is a threat to our democracy. I know it sounds like everything happening these days is, but there is a reason for that. Trump and the GOP are not acting like we live in a democratic society and they are tearing down the walls that hold it up in this country. You know what kinds of leaders interfere in the judicial process to favor their allies? Despots, autocrats, dictators, those sorts of leaders. This is not the action of a democratic leader if this was a directive from Trump (or something Barr did to please his boss).

Put me in with those who often mused that we should elect someone to run the country as a business.  I just didn't count on people voting for the guy who never knew how to run a business but instead ran a criminal organization disguised as his daddy's business.

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2020, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Put me in with those who often mused that we should elect someone to run the country as a business.  I just didn't count on people voting for the guy who never knew how to run a business but instead ran a criminal organization disguised as his daddy's business.

I used to say things like that, but that was before I learned about how a government functions and how democracy works. Then I realized that running a government is nothing at all like running a business and business leaders would be terrible at running a government. That's been a while, now, though.

[jj22]

(02-11-2020, 11:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is what it looks like when the checks and balances break down in our government. We have a POTUS that is acting like an autocrat.

He's not acting. Our Democracy and Constitution is over. That was clear when he was "acquitted" by the Senate. A POTUS can do anything now. They are above the law, and the Military (as we see with what happened to Vindman) now works for the POTUS as does the DOJ etc. They all now do the POTUS's dirty work and aren't there to protect the institution or the American people.

There's consequences to Republicans discarding the constitution and giving the POTUS absolute power. This is just the beginning and why History books when they write about how America went from a Democracy to a Dictatorship this moment in time will be pointed to.

Our only hope at restoring order is if a Democrat does something if they get Presidency. Then Lord knows the constitution will be back meaning something and the outrage from the American people and voters will force change. But that's only if a Democrat does something. As long as it's a Republican POTUS, Democracy as we know it is dead.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-12-2020, 01:42 PM)jj22 Wrote: He's not acting. Our Democracy and Constitution is over. That was clear when he was "acquitted" by the Senate. A POTUS can do anything now. They are above the law, and the Military (as we see with what happened to Vindman) now works for the POTUS as does the DOJ etc. They all now do the POTUS's dirty work and aren't there to protect the institution or the American people.

There's consequences to Republicans discarding the constitution and giving the POTUS absolute power. This is just the beginning and why History books when they write about how America went from a Democracy to a Dictatorship this moment in time will be pointed to.

Our only hope at restoring order is if a Democrat does something if they get Presidency. Then Lord knows the constitution will be back meaning something and the outrage from the American people and voters will force change. But that's only if a Democrat does something. As long as it's a Republican POTUS, Democracy as we know it is dead.

So even in your view, neither our democracy nor our constitution is dead.  We just need a Democrat.  Which we will get in maybe a year or almost certainly in five years.  

[jj22]

(02-12-2020, 01:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So even in your view, neither our democracy nor our constitution is dead.  We just need a Democrat.  Which we will get in maybe a year or almost certainly in five years.  

We'll see. There's such a double standard that our only hope is a Democrat will do something (like rip up a speech GASP!) that will cause outrage and calls of removal and points of decorum lost, and insult to our Instutiion (as we saw with Nancy) by both parties.

I don't see a Democrat winning possibly ever again with Republican's ability to use foreign countries to attack political opponents, hack political opponents, open fake investigations, and push fake news and conspiracy theories through social media. The chips are stacked. Democrats can't beat a Republican, and Foreign Countries. That's just too much for anyone to overcome.

But if you want to save this nation, this is the only hope going forward.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2020, 01:42 PM)jj22 Wrote: He's not acting. Our Democracy and Constitution is over. That was clear when he was "acquitted" by the Senate. A POTUS can do anything now. They are above the law, and the Military (as we see with what happened to Vindman) now works for the POTUS as does the DOJ etc. They all now do the POTUS's dirty work and aren't there to protect the institution or the American people.

There's consequences to Republicans discarding the constitution and giving the POTUS absolute power. This is just the beginning and why History books when they write about how America went from a Democracy to a Dictatorship this moment in time will be pointed to.t's a Republican POTUS, Democracy as we know it is dead.

Lighten up drama queen.  People still have the right to vote.  If the "dictator" really destroys the good life for voters then he/she will be removed by popular vote.

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2020, 01:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So even in your view, neither our democracy nor our constitution is dead.  We just need a Democrat.  Which we will get in maybe a year or almost certainly in five years.  

In my view they are not dead, but they are under attack. That being said, I have zero hope in a Democrat turning things around. I expect them to use these precedents to their advantage and do things that aren't quite as bad, but would have been abhorrent before Trump.

[jj22]

(02-12-2020, 02:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lighten up drama queen.  People still have the right to vote.  If the "dictator" really destroys the good life for voters then he/she will be removed by popular vote.

You have more faith in American voters than I do.

I think they showed their true colors in 2016.

As far as people having the right to vote. Republicans have been attacking that for years.

And removal by popular vote? I have no idea what you are talking about.

But call me what you want. I've been right more often then not around here. I'll continue to defend what was our Constitution and Democracy. Liberals need to quit eating their own and join me in defending our Constitution.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2020, 02:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: You have more faith in American voters than I do.

I think they showed their true colors in 2016.

Now I have no clue what you are talking about.  How many people voted to end democracy and give up their right to vote?

You fail to see the difference between "Dictatorship" and "Leader I disagree with".

(02-12-2020, 02:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: And removal by popular vote? I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Of course you don't.  Here is a suggestion.  Do some research on the results of the 2016 midterm elections and the control of the House of Representatives.


Educate yourself.

(02-12-2020, 02:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: But call me what you want. I've been right more often then not around here. 

No you have not.  You have usually taken the most extreme position that never really plays out the way you claim it does.
 

[jj22]

You must miss Bfine, but I said what I said.

And the house sure did a great job removing Trump huh. Just trying to educate myself. Now educate me again? Cause I'm researching and I'm not seeing Trump being removed.....

And the Constitution was shredded rather you late realizing it or not. The POTUS now has absolute power. Democrats still eating their own not realizing what is happening in real time but crying when they lose.

The naivety of their voters like you are to blame.

Now back to 2016 midterm election and popular vote and control of the house. Where did I miss Trump being removed again? You got some explainin to do. I'll wait.

[jj22]

Exactly. Crickets.

So let this be a lesson for anyone wondering if Democrats will win in 2020. While they're busy chastising those who dare to speak truth about what is happening in broad daylight (as Trump and his new found power exploits in in their face) or dares to rip up a piece of paper (a moment history will point to as the moment Democrats lost the 2020 election showing proof American voters and even members of the Democratic party aren't ready to accept a Democrat getting down and dirty on Trumps level as Nancy did, which is the only hope of countering him and winning in 2020), Trump and Republicans are running relay around them while they are busy eating their own.

It's a great time to be an Independent so you can say what you feel.

Now can anyone else explain to me what Republicans winning the House in 2016 has to do with anything?

Or why folks don't realize that they vote in Russia, Iran and NK yet no one considers them a Democracy?

And to answer the question, yes voters voted to end our Democracy as we knew it in 2016. Yes. Yes they did. Until folks realize that they are surely set to fail when facing Trump again who ran on draining the swamp (congress) and being an outsider who won't play by the norm.

And he won!

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2020, 03:39 PM)jj22 Wrote: Or why folks don't realize that they vote in Russia, Iran and NK yet no one considers them a Democracy?

Just to expand on this a little, here are the conditions for a polyarchy (what Robert Dahl came up with as an alternative name for western democracy):

Universal suffrage and the right to run for public office
Free and fairly conducted elections for all adults
Availability and observance of the right to free speech and protection to exercise it
The existence of and free access to alternative information (not controlled by government)
The undisputed right to form and to join relatively autonomous organizations—in particular, political parties (and, crucially, parties in opposition)
Responsiveness of government (and parties) to voters
Accountability of government (and parties) to election outcomes and government.

I've brought these up in this forum, before. These are measures of a democratic society, so when we start to see these chipped away at, we see our democracy falter.