Pelosi and company will get the blame if all they do is waste time.
Pelosi and company will get the blame if all they do is waste time.
This is incredibly frustrating to think about/watch. The dems have nearly anything they could want. but a bunch of fucking cowards.
I really don't know man. The entire situation is fucked up as long as Barr is casting BoP on Trump every cool down.
The only way Trump goes down is if hes beaten in 2020. We have to pick someone better than Biden. Are there no other candidates who are out of left field for dems like Obama was his first time around? I have a really bad feeling about Biden. This needs to be a slam dunk, not a game 7 win.
Last edited by Beazy; 2019-06-13 at 10:58 PM.
If the dems can somehow put together a scenario where the people running for President aren't involved at all in the process and don't make any comments on Impeachment, keeping to the issues of Jobs/Healthcare/Law&Order; while the House Committee members can troll him on a daily basis, that would be ideal.
Again, I think it would be smart if the candidates came out...on the side of law and justice.
Not discussing it, is playing into them being corrupt narrative.
The best way to NOT be part of the swamp is to not be swampy. Speak out on what's right....for once. Trump broke the law, demand he pay for that.
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
So good news came today. Remember the Gamble v US case some folks were concerned would give Trump an avenue to pardon his minions and have them escape justice at the State Level too?
Turns out concerns were baseless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8bea1c50093d
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed the long-established precedent that allows both state and federal authorities to prosecute a person for the same offense, a ruling that has implications for President Trump’s pardon powers.
The 7 to 2 ruling rejected arguments that allowing subsequent prosecutions violates the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights, which prohibits more than one prosecution or punishment for the same offense.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote for the majority; Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
Since the 1850s, the court has allowed an exception to the Constitution’s double-jeopardy prohibition on the theory that the federal and state governments are separate constitutional actors with their own sovereign authority.
Alito said that the evidence mounted by challengers that the pratice departs from the founding-era understanding of the Double Jeopardy Clause is “feeble; pointing the other way are the Clause’s text, other historical evidence, and 170 years of precedent.”
The case drew special attention because of Trump’s musings that he might pardon some officials caught up in investigations of the administration. For instance, some states have said they plan to prosecute former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under their own tax evasion laws should Trump pardon Manafort on his federal convictions.
[Manafort indicted in New York state, charges that fall outside Trump’s pardon power]
But Monday’s case, Gamble v. U.S., represented a concerted effort by groups of conservatives and liberals alike to persuade the court that the exception exposes defendants to the potential harassment, trauma, expense and sometimes extra punishment the double jeopardy clause was designed to prevent.
The case was brought by Terance Gamble, who was convicted of robbery in Mobile County, Ala., in 2008 and two domestic violence charges in 2013. Under both state and federal law, such a convicted felon may not possess a firearm.
I mean, Trump issue aside, I can see the argument on both ends.
On the one hand, as part of a federal system, which we still emphatically are (even though we love to pretend we're a unitary state), the States are sovereign in their own right, and this country is one of shared sovereignty between the Federal Government and the 50 states. So criminal liability in one should necessarily not preclude liability in the other, otherwise there is no true shared sovereignty.
On the other hand double jeopardy was forbidden by the Fifth Amendment because exactly that sort of thing was being utilized to squash political dissent in Europe in the late 18th century (and well before of course). And to this very day, double jeopardy is utilized by authoritarian regimes whenever they don't get the outcome they want. Every day people being potentially at risk for having to defend their innocence a second time is a pretty monstrous thing to have to have people to do.
I don't know what the right way through this would be. Way above my paygrade. I'm not even sure how it can be both. From what I'm reading on this topic, it seems like the consensus since the 1850s is that the shared sovereignty principle has been pretty much been allowed to supersede the 5th amendment prohibition. I don't quite know if that's the right balance for the modern era.
Regardless shared sovereignty remains by far one of the founders most brilliant innovations, and also probably the single most complicated. Think about everything that has arisen out of it... good and bad.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
This whole administration is run just like a criminal organization. From the story it was Deputy AG Rosen who issued. Any of the sources are not tracing this back to Barr, but seems strange.Wow—Paul Manafort Seemed Headed to Rikers. Then the Justice Department Intervened. https://t.co/N7QYZDNIvZ
Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!
Legal definition of criminal conspiracy:
Proving criminal conspiracy enough for conviction in a court of law is incredibly easy. All you need is a crime to have happened or attempt to have happened and an agreement between the parties involved to commit or attempt to commit that crime. The Mueller Report clearly lays out that Trump and his team are guilty of criminal conspiracy, just like they laid out obstruction.If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
Denying this, because of your Trump lust, means you're not a patriot of the US.
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown