Message Forum - GENERAL

”Jack, again I am under the impression that a sitting President can not be indicted but Articles of Impreachment can be brought against him. Is that correct?”

All of this is answered at great length on-line. But I’m not doing the work for you, Nora—look it up.

12/08/18 07:15 PM

#7499

https://www.wired.com/story/manafort-cohen-sentencing-trump-mueller-investigation-worst-case-scenario/

If your brain, like mine, gets overwhelmed by the accumulating evidence of interaction between Russians and the Trump campaign, this article is an excellent summary of what we know and what it suggests.

“. . . Special counsel Robert Mueller and investigative reporters have uncovered and assembled a picture of a presidential campaign and transition seemingly infected by unprecedented deceit and criminality, and in regular—almost obsequious—contact with America’s leading foreign adversary. . .

”. . . Mueller has laid out a criminal conspiracy and espionage campaign approved, according to US intelligence, by Vladimir Putin himself. More recently, Mueller has begun to hint at the long arm of that intelligence operation, and how it connects to the core of the Trump campaign itself. . . .

“. . . Mueller’s court filings, when coupled with other investigative reporting, paint a picture of how the Russian government, through various trusted-but-deniable intermediaries, conducted a series of “approaches” over the course of the spring of 2016 to determine, as Wittes says, whether “this is a guy you can do business with.”

“The answer, from everyone in Trumpland—from Michael Cohen in January 2016, from George Papadopoulos in spring 2016, from Donald Trump, Jr. in June 2016, from Michael Flynn in December 2016—appears to have been an unequivocal ‘yes’ . . .

”. . . Given every opportunity, most Trump associates—from Paul Manafort to Donald Trump, Jr. to George Papadopoulos—not only allegedly took every offered meeting, and returned every email or phone call, but appeared to take overt action to encourage further contact. Not once did any of them inform the FBI of the contacts.”.

12/09/18 10:15 AM

#7500

Hmm. I think they are going to have to come up with something more than campaign finance abuse to successfully file articles of impeachment against this president. Unfortunately, not because what he may have done with directing payments to women isn't bad enough. but because it will open many a closed & double-bolted closet where skeletal remains of infidels are found. Do you really think that all the guys who have paid off "squealing" women will want that Pandora plethora opened? Their memories aren't so short that they can't recall several tearful & public confessions which gushed forth when Clinton was on the carpet. As for Jack's suggestion that I "look it up". I have escaped that chore:. three well-known constitutionalists (Alan Dershovitz, Joe DiGenova and Jon Turley( a Joanie fave ) have confirmed that indicting a sitting president is not plausible. Though the public may hate that roadblock, many Congressionals sleep at night, relying on it. I thought Jack might cite an argument opposing those three well known attorneys. But no. If anyone can, however, please enlighten. (Btw, does anybody think it sad that the MSM was so full of Trump bait, that Pearl Harbor Day hardly got a whisper?)

Glen, last night's game was a pleasure. They came to play when they were missing three of their key players. Though I found myself wishing the Caps would score more on some of their power plays, really loved how our defense killed the Jackets' PPs, time after time. After that contest, it's hard not to get waves of "giddy". I think, if attrition works in our favor, this team will get us through the winter months just fine. Wish I could get as worked up about today's game. Ugh. Now, about those nacho recipes....

What is it about Christmas? At 72, much of it is teary (along with the bliss) and I can't figure out why. Too many ghosts of Christmases past? The music that switches our emotions off and on? Memories of our giggling babies soaking up their early Christmases? Turkeys, stockings? Sentimentality. Nostalgia fills the air. A card, a lyric, a poem will turn the faucet on. Or is it just that it all comes overwhelmingly at once?

12/09/18 11:09 AM

#7501

No way of assessing the opinions of the sources Nora cites without any information about when they issued these opinions, or in what context. If issued a year ago, obviously irrelevant to questions of impeachment after this last week.

Is this the same DiGenova who said in a WSJ article, “The nation, in fact, could conceivably benefit from the indictment of a president. It would teach the valuable civics lesson that no one is above the law. As an appeals court told Mr. Clinton in the Paula Jones case, the Founders created a presidency, not a monarchy.”

If his opinion on impeachment is credible, why not his thinking on indictment, Nora?

**********

The WaPo, NYT, Newsweek, Fox, and numerous other MSM did articles on Pearl Harbor Day.

**********

“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” Dorothea Lang.

12/09/18 11:53 AM

#7502

Apparently indictment is a different animal than impeachment. High crimes & misdemeanors will be hard to find (notwithstanding copious redactions), considering Clinton paid Paula Jones $850k. However, lying under oath was Clinton’s (almost) ultimate downfall. But whatever, the three attorneys mentioned made those comments via various media outlets after the latest Mueller filing emerged yesterday. A filing, btw, that stopped short of connecting Trump to a felony. But, ain’t over! And apparently never will be.

Yup. A few Pearl Harbor whispers among big Trump shouts. But, hey, where are the big bucks in a Pearl Harbor story? 🙄

12/09/18 12:30 PM

#7503

“the three attorneys mentioned made those comments via various media outlets after the latest Mueller filing emerged yesterday.”

No sources, no links, no credibility. Too many less than accurate claims in the past, Nora.

12/09/18 01:11 PM

#7504

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

The difference between the criminal indictment of a President and an impeachment conviction is that an indictment could and almost certainly would go to the Supreme Court. There is no judicial appeal of an impeachment process.

A President fearful of impeachment, or a re-election loss, has frightening options, however. Two years ago, just after his election and before his demagogic disregard of American constitutional values became evident, I would have dismissed this article as uncalled for. Now, not so much.

**********

My spa, upstream.

12/09/18 11:16 PM

#7505

I don't think much of DeGenova and Dershowitz....Turley is interesting to listen too but overall I think they are all missing the point. I think Mueller will show that crimes were committed and that it goes to the top. Bringing up Clinton doesn't take away from what Trump has been doing. Love, Joanie

12/10/18 07:27 AM

#7506

In perusing through Liza Goitein’s very biased piece, I am remembering her left wing offerings when I saw her occasionally on Rachel Maddow. This piece however, seems to me to make the perfect case for allowing the 2020 election decide what to do with this naughty, naughty president because heaven forbid he gets cornered like some wild animal & screws the country even more than he’s screwing it now!

Her hyperbolic rant aside & in reference to impeaching Trump, did anybody see Sen. Angus King (Independent-Maine) on Meet The Press yesterday? Made the most sense to me: in a nutshell, it better add up to something really big to reverse an election. As for me personally, I don’t really care since I think (much to the dismay of a handful of my leftist buds) that Mike Pence can take the reins just fine but I hate to see us go through a grueling, expensive, bitter & badgering impeachment process without damn good reason. As yucky as it is, paying off (with one’s own money) consenting women to shut-up publically doesn’t come close. It’s hard to believe fired-up Dems will resist overreaching for the low-hanging fruit, however, & focus on something like getting a border deal. What a concept.

Also, it seems to me that I’d rather have my sitting President doing the people’s work than under indictment & therefore dealing with courtroom drama, legal fees, cloistered attorney teams & such. Why not indict, the minute the moving van pulls away from the White House? Is that too much to ask?

12/10/18 08:32 AM

#7507

William Stromsem

If the House Democrats focus on impeachment, this may not serve them well in the next election. The Senate won't convict him any more than the Senate would convict Clinton, and the whole process will take a year. In the meantime, the impeachment effort will be characterized by Trump as just politics and a waste of time while the House neglects more important government business. Of course if Trump can be proven to have colluded to fix the election, this would change things, but otherwise people will tire of hearings, as they are already tiring of impeachment talk in the news. I wish there were a more positive focus coming from the new House majority--that would serve them much better.

12/10/18 09:43 AM

#7508

Nancy Pelosi has NOT been emphasizing impeachment at all. She is talking about getting things done and Jerry Nadler too is being cautious. Of course they feel oversight should occur to be a check on overreach of executive power. Because there are some Democrats who are talking about it doesn't mean its this major push at the head of the party. I have heard many Democrats say that the election of 2020 will decide things. However I wouldn't minimize the seriousness of what Trump has been doing. Its not just hushing up women because of his private life...Mueller must have strong evidence of what it includes....that it is a campaign finance violation and deception to the American people before an election to help Trump's chances of winning....that is a felony if proven. Then the Trump Tower idea that was ongoing in Russia when Trump was a candidate and President too I believe, is also a very serious violation and also offering a 50 million dollar penthouse to Putin as well...This is looking more and more like a quid pro quo situation of trying and trying to relieve Russia of the sanctions that Obama levied against them for ATTACKING our election in return for Putin doing business with Trump. Putin knew that Trump lied about it all saying he had no ties to business in Russia and so Trump became compromised as Putin knew otherwise....this is not about me, an overly zeolous Democrat as Nori might have it, but rather I am a concerned American talking..I want our President to succeed no matter what party but I don't want to have a President who is on the side of Putin over the United States. Love, Joanie

12/10/18 09:58 AM

#7509

“biased,” “left wing,” “hyperbolic” but no examples. I gave you the article, Nora, with a link, and you can't go to the trouble of supporting your criticism with evidence? BCC taught you better!

12/10/18 10:07 AM

#7510

As much as I hate to give you a bad name, William, we are on the same page. And, contrary to what my forum reputation is, I DO want the Democratic Party to be smart and do well. Showing they can work with Republicans would be good start.

For those who don't follow or care about the Redskins, skip the rest of this post. Yesterday was an embarrassing mess where half (and probably more than half) of the already dwindled attendance turned their collective backs on the team and emptied the stands at halftime with the score a miserable 34-0 against the Giants. After reading Josh Norman's whine about not feeling the fan-love, I have to come down hard on him, as other discouraged fans have done. Year in and year out, we see our home team getting less and less competitive, playing more and more carelessly. It's hard to justify a $600 price tag to gas up the car, drive the beltway, pay for parking and lunch to take a couple of my grandies to the nosebleed section where we usually get wet from air-born beer and are subjected to a cacophony of words that would make a sailor blush. I weathered it because it's an excitement into which I was born and to which I wanted to expose my kids and grandkids. Call me a traditionalist, but happy family memories often bear repeating. Add the taint of politics, money and then noting a lack in team effort and lousy front office decisions, and I'm pretty much done. I realize there are injuries. I realize Sanchez is a third stringer. I realize they made a mistake in getting rid of Cousins. But, after a number of disappointing years (most of which I'm glad my parents aren't around to see), it's hard NOT to boo and walk away. Some of the responses from this morning's fanbase resonate with me. Here are two: "the fans have shown up for decades but they have finally had enough when year after year it's the whole franchise that doesn't show up." But, here's my fave: " after going to the store to pick-up some milk...I had two tickets to the Redskins game sitting on the seat of my pick-up. When I returned, I found someone had broken in...and left two more!"

Fan loyalty is a two way street, Norman.

12/10/18 12:38 PM

#7511

Fun, interesting if you’re interested in regional American speech/accents. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/dialect-quiz-map.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_up_20181210&nl=upshot&nl_art=5&nlid=35824785emc%3Dedit_up_20181210&ref=headline&te=1

My results, try it out! Trying to get my CA raised kids to do it, see how their results look. I'm clearly an East Coast speaker

12/10/18 05:47 PM

#7512

The Constitutional scholar that Nora recommends, Joe DiGenova, thinks that indicting presidents would remind them that they aren't above the law.

The common justification for not indicting sitting presidents is that the onerous burdens of office preclude such an interruption.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-150-days-presidency-trump-golf-club-1090729

************

The ice flowers are blooming on the Contoocook:

12/10/18 08:48 PM

#7513

Actually, today yet another 'legal eagle', Judge (and syndicated columnist) Andrew Napolitano, explained that a sitting president can be indicted but not prosecuted until leaving office. Makes sense to me. Law is like the Bible. Lots of interpretations!

12/10/18 11:11 PM

#7514

Actually whether a sitting President can be indicted is open to discussion...Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard Professor, and Constitutional scholar says a sitting President can be indicted. He said that the framers never intended for a sitting President to be above the law...he said the DOJ policy would not hold up. He said that if that approach were followed, Trump could resign and Pence could pardon him and then in effect he would not be able to be prosecuted. I tried to put the article Tribe wrote on the forum but kept getting ad blockers so I didn't find the article yet....I heard Tribe speak on a show about this. Love, Joanie

12/11/18 09:31 AM

#7515

Glen Hirose

As I sit here looking at the wreckage of the Washington Football season I can't help but blame Dan Snyder.

Image result for rime of the ancient mariner

12/11/18 02:26 PM

#7516

I’d pay the VA for the joy of work working there. Shooting the shit today with a guy who lost both eyes in an IED explosion, fantasizing about glass eye designs. An eagle, globe and anchor (he's a Marine, obviously)? American flag? Predator skull? Just the word “Why?” Other suggestions not fit for a family forum. Some of those would really make folks look twice.

This is why vets need the VA, not some Medicare-like access to private health clinics, even if free. Not going to have these conversations in Dr. Whoever's waiting room, full of civilians. Love my vets.

12/11/18 03:57 PM

#7517

Trump wants to reclassify dangerous nuclear waste to save billions of dollars that it cost to more safely dispose of the waste....I know many Trump supporters are happy with him on so many levels but hard to believe they would want this dangerous waste in the earth. Love, Joanie Thoughts Nori, and others?

https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Trump-plan-to-reclassify-nuke-waste-alarms-13454572.php

12/11/18 05:54 PM

#7518

Glen Hirose

Oops!

Jack I forgot to mention how beautifully you have captured nature's wonders in your latest photos.

12/11/18 06:23 PM

#7519

http://time.com/person-of-the-year-2018-the-guardians/

Time Magazine has produced a 2018 Person of the Year issue with four covers featuring some of The Guardians, as it refers to journalists around the world who have been threatened, jailed, tortured, and murdered. Guardians because they bear witness to the truths that make the difference between freedom and tyranny. They are the independent media that work to expose the mis-statements, obfuscations, and outright lies of despots, demagogues, and would-be autocrats: those who tell us there are no truths, that all realities are relative, that those who report it are enemies of the people.

The United States has in the past an been exemplar of freedom of the press, but totalitarians around the world now see our President as a model for their repression of truth-tellers. “Fake news” and “enemies of the people” are slogans shared by Putin, Basshar-al-Assad, Duterte, and Trump.

Time's Person of the Year issue celebrates those who sacrifice to resist autocracy and reveal truth in their news.

12/11/18 06:31 PM

#7520

Thanks Jack for that post of the wonderful journalists, some of which as we know have even given their lives to speak the truth. Love, Joanie

12/12/18 12:06 PM

#7521

Glen Hirose

Oh yea!

Showin' off the Big Boy Skates; Mr. Ovechkin with a "Hat Trick" #21 so far...

Image result for washington capitals ovechkin hat trick

12/12/18 12:43 PM

#7522