Impeachment Collection

[Zzyzx_Road]

You are not in the position to declare what I know. Please cease and desist.

You are not in a position to declare what I know. Please cease and desist.

Oh my stars, you are sooooo serious

Mueller punted in the report. Mueller punted at the press conference. Threw that stuff over the wall. Sure he said he was handing facts over to Congress. But that’s not the same as saying he thinks those facts are sufficient for indictment. He could easily have said the latter, and he didn’t. Which I’m sure frustrates you no end.

BTW, whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

 

[Economist]

Congress has all they need on what Mueller investigated.

Obviously not, since the whole, unredacted report and the supporting documents have not been turned over, despite a subpoena. The “game” is transparent, (unlike the president’s affairs - I would love to see the school results of this “very stable genius”. Did he even pass the courses with a D minus?). Use every tool, whether legal or illegal to drag out the demands of Congress in the hope to gain time, and to prevent Congress from being able to exercise the overseeing authority.

FYI, Mueller’s scope was not limited, that’s why indictments were handed out for completely unrelated crimes.

It was in relation to the Russia probe. That is why the other crimes were handed over to the other authorities, who can deal with them.

Oh my stars, you are sooooo serious

The word is “polite” and restrained.

Which I’m sure frustrates you no end.

You are “sure” about too many things, which are beyond your knowledge and competence. As a matter of fact, I am not frustrated at all. I am just a spectator of game, who prefers one team over the other, but the outcome does not affect me at all.

BTW, whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

This principle is only applicable in a criminal case - and only in the settings of the court. Which we shall reach - hopefully - in the due course of the events. As about a 1000 professional investigators already opined: “if anyone else would have had so much evidence against him, he would already have been indicted, and possibly in jail”.

Yep, we do live in interesting times.

 

[JonNC]

You mean that the conservatives in some “red” states (Alabama, Georgia, etc…) want to use the power of the government to restrict / eliminate the women’s control of their bodies, making them into “breeding sacks” against their wishes?

No, I expect government to protect human beings who are not yet born with the same intensity that they protect unhatched sea turtles and the like.

It is the “regressives” (another new word is suggested here) who want to extend the power of the government into our bedrooms.

What you do in your bedroom is your choice. If the result is another human being, their rights deserve protecting too.

In a sense this all-out attack on women and their reproductive freedom is a “good” thing.

The all out attack on women comes, of course, from progressives. Trying to deny their right to arms. More than half the humans killed in abortions are females.

I don’t like AOC and her economic programs - she does not seem to well educated in economics (of course that is true for Trump, too) but hopefully she can whip up the fervor and the elections will show that you cannot change the US into Gilead (this reference to the Handmaid’s Tale is warranted).

Well, the kind of fascistic fervor, economically and socially, she is whipping up is exactly where the progressive movement is.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

The word is “polite” and restrained.

Ahem …

You are “sure” about too many things, which are beyond your knowledge and competence.

As are you. “Polite” and restrained? To throw your words back at you. Ahem again …

Yep, we do live in interesting times.

At last, something we agree on.

 

[JonNC]

Obviously not, since the whole, unredacted report and the supporting documents have not been turned over, despite a subpoena. The “game” is transparent,

All nine lines of redacted. But if course, Barr should break the law and release that since the law is irrelevant when it comes to removing Trump. The very nature of the investigation comes from breaking the law by people who were supposed to uphold the law, in the highest offices of the FBI and DOJ. No matter, the ends (overturning the election) justify the means.

 

[Economist]

No, I expect government to protect human beings who are not yet born

This is “regressive speak”. Reality is to force women to become unwilling breeding sacks. Using the power of the government, of course. So it is not the “progressives”, but the “regressives” who want to extend the powers of the government.

But if course, Barr should break the law…

Barr already broke the law. The Constitution gives the power to Congress to demand information in the form of a subpoena. To refuse is breaking of the law. And this is underscored by the concept of “inherent contempt”, under which Congress is authorized to direct the Sergeant at Arms to put Barr into jail, until he complies with the law.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems a FULL investigation requires at least testimony under oath. Since Mueller couldn’t have that, I can’t see any exonerations. Now it’s up to Congress and various districts to finish the investigations, and not necessarily related to Russia.

 

[grotto]

Anyone else notice that a hateful vitriol has surfaced and we need to ignore it since we cannot constantly rebut - its too ignorant and most will reject it.

No further commentary from this end.

 

[ProVobis]

(Post withdrawn)

 

[EricF]

It is a mistake to equate negativity about the president with hate, but here we are. Anything negative about him, even backed up with facts, is immediately dismissed as TDS or hate. It is as if some think him infallible.

 

[JonNC]

This is “regressive speak”.

No. It is reality speak.

Reality is to force women to become unwilling breeding sacks.

No one is forcing anyone to do that which causes a human being.

Using the power of the government, of course. So it is not the “progressives”, but the “regressives” who want to extend the powers of the government.

It is progressives, usually, who claim it is a “right “ for one human to kill another

Barr already broke the law. The Constitution gives the power to Congress to demand information in the form of a subpoena.

No he has not. The law does prohibit Barr from sharing certain information regarding grand juries, etc. It is a law Congress passed. If Congress wants that information they can easily change then law.

To refuse is breaking of the law. And this is underscored by the concept of “ inherent contempt ”, under which Congress is authorized to direct the Sergeant at Arms to put Barr into jail, until he complies with the law.

Congress cannot require him to break the law. All they have to do is change the law.
But it is further the case that the president can exercise executive privilege. If Nadler thinks he can win out, take Trump to court

 

[JonNC]

It seems a FULL investigation requires at least testimony under oath. Since Mueller couldn’t have that, I can’t see any exonerations.

Oh, I think Mueller should be subpoenaed to testify. I think he should be required to explain a number of things.

1. when was it clear that there was no conspiracy collusion?
2. why did you continue the investigation after that point?
3. why did you not investigate the criminal abuse of the FISA court system?
4. what is the legal origin of the phrase “not not guilty”?

And more. Mueller’s statement was the efforts of an political hack.

Now it’s up to Congress and various districts to finish the investigations, and not necessarily related to Russia.

It is up to the DOJ to investigate the potentially criminal activity of members of the Obama administration leading up to and following the election.

 

[Economist]

No one is forcing anyone to do that which causes a human being.

Except the rapists. And a zygote is not a human being, it is just a cell. A blastocyst is not a human being, only a bunch of cells. Neither of them is given a SS number, if they die, there is no death certificate, so in the eyes of the law (and common sense) they are not human beings. They cannot inherit either.

As soon as they are born, they become new human beings. They are protected, as they should be.

If you would follow Aquinas, you would understand that an actual human being - a born person - is fundamentally different from a bunch of cells - which are potential human beings. If you try to deviate from the church’s philosophy, you are on very shaky ground.

All that has been explained to you, and you could not provide any opposing arguments, except repeating your incorrect views.

And to add insult to injury you keep on attempting to deny women their reproductive freedom, by violating the law, called Roe v. Wade. So you have no grounds to stand even in the legal stance. It is the “regressives” who wish to break the law, not the pro-choicers. The pro-choicers merely wish not to be harassed by the “regressives”, when they try to exercise their constitutional rights.

 

[JonNC]

Except the rapists. A

Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of abortions are related to rape. While rape is not the fault of the child, I’m okay with victims of rape ( or incest involving a minor) having access to an abortion.

And a zygote is not a human being, it is just a cell.

It is a human being. It has the dna that it will have throughout its entire life.

A blastocyst is not a human being, only a bunch of cells. Neither of them is given a SS number, if they die, there is no death certificate,

Oh, so as long as the government doesn’t issue an SSN, it isn’t human. That must be the reason DEMOCRAT governor Northam and the state of NY are happy to see just born children die. Just don’t issue an SSN.A woman’s “right to choose” remains in effect.

As soon as they are born, they become new human beings. They are protected, as they should be.

Not according to progressives. Not according to your proof of humanhood (government grants you an SSN). Or is it the magic of the birth canal (sounds almost religious).

If you would follow Aquinas, you would understand that an actual human being - a born person - is fundamentally different from a bunch of cells - which are potential human beings. If you try to deviate from the church’s philosophy, you are on very shaky ground.

Ah, so your appeal to authority is to claim that Thomism teaches abortion. Got it.

And to add insult to injury you keep on attempting to deny women their reproductive freedom, by violating the law, called Roe v. Wade.

Not me. I’m not a progressive. I’m perfectly happy to let the court determine the issue. And no matter what the Court decides, it is still the killing of an innocent human being. You can pretend it is okay to kill an innocent human being this way. I won’t.

It is the “regressives” who wish to break the law, not the pro-choicers. The pro-choicers merely wish not to be harassed by the “regressives”, when they try to exercise their constitutional rights.

The pro-abortionists are willing to make the same excuses that, for example, slave holders made. “ They’re not really humans.” Mostly the same political party, too. If one can dehumanize, killing becomes okay.

 

[ProVobis]

Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of abortions are related to rape. While rape is not the fault of the child, I’m okay with victims of rape ( or incest involving a minor) having access to an abortion.

So 5000 fetuses aren’t worth the bother of trying to put up for adoption or something else?

Oh wait, that’s Trump’s position too.

 

[JonNC]

So 5000 fetuses aren’t worth the bother of trying to put up for adoption or something else?

Oh wait, that’s Trump’s position too.

Oh, I think they are. But pro-abortionists often use rape as an excuse for the killing of 800,000 to 900,000 soon to be born human beings every year.
They either have to say okay regarding the prevention of 99.5% of abortions, or admit that rape isn’t really a factor in their beliefs.

 

[JimG]

So it is the severing of the umbilical cord that suddenly makes a baby human? Amazing. A pregnant woman is never carrying a human being in her womb until the umbilical cord is cut. Such an amazing power to create a new human being instantaneously with a simple snip! I guess a mother should tell her other kids, “you are going to get a new baby sister but she’s not human yet!”
“Well, what is she then?”.”
“She’s a potential! But sometimes she kicks.”

 

[vz71]

And a zygote is not a human being, it is just a cell. A blastocyst is not a human being, only a bunch of cells. Neither of them is given a SS number, if they die, there is no death certificate, so in the eyes of the law (and common sense) they are not human beings. They cannot inherit either.

Yet both are human life.

 

[7_Sorrows]

So please explain to me what reproductive freedom means to you.

I Don’t know if you are male or female, but suppose someone very close to you was in the 6th, 7th or 8th month of pregnancy - or earlier.
The nursery was decorated, a baby shower was celebrated - everything is moving forward to the day the baby will be born - doctor’s appointments where perhaps a sonogram is done, the baby’s heartbeat is heard, the
hospital is decided upon where the baby will be born, newborn clothes are bought for the new baby to wear home from the hospital a new car seat is bought to transport the baby
in home from the hospital. Anyhow,
during the pregnancy a terrible accident happens with a drunk driver and the mother is killed or perhaps is murdered. The mother and baby both
die. You can say that the person responsible for the death of the mother and baby should not be charged for causing 2 deaths? The baby was growing and kicking and moving inside the mother before the accident or murder took place.
There are some states the person arrested would be charged for causing 2 deaths and there are other states which would only charge causing the death of 1 person, the
mother. How in this day and age someone cannot be charged in causing the death of both the mother and baby is beyond me!

 

[vz71]

“She’s a potential! But sometimes she kicks.”

Sorry ma’am. There was a horrible accident. You’ve delivered a lizard.
We meant to cut the cord correctly, but the intern had never done this before and he cur the wrong way. You now have a lizard.