ChrisWeigant.com

Democrats Should Draft Some Presidential Ethics Bills

[ Posted Wednesday, May 1st, 2019 – 17:16 UTC ]

Congressional Democrats, especially those in the House (where they enjoy a majority, and can thus get things done), should counter a recent Trumpian dodge by taking up his challenge and drafting some very specific bills dealing with presidential and campaign ethics. Not only will this head the false GOP talking point off at the pass, it will also add to the developing Democratic platform for the 2020 elections (both presidential and congressional). A win-win situation, in other words.

House Democrats are currently exploring multiple avenues in investigating President Donald Trump's possible wrongdoing. Much of this is centered around the president's finances, both personal and business. Trump is pushing back hard against these investigations, in an attempt to both stonewall and delay these Democratic efforts. Both Trump and his toadies have latched onto a new explanation of why such pushback is both proper and necessary. Congressional oversight, they argue, is only proper and justified if there is underlying legislation designed to solve some sort of problem. In other words, if the congressional committee has no intention of actually writing some sort of bill, then they simply should not be allowed to investigate anything about the president, especially his finances.

This is a largely specious constitutional argument, but let's just set that aside for the time being and examine the situation politically instead. Trump, as always, is playing the victim, insisting that Democrats have crossed some sort of red line and are doing nothing short of what he calls "presidential harassment." His finances, he has always said, are completely off limits to any investigation. The fact that he doesn't personally get to draw such a red line is lost on him, of course, because he's never actually read the U.S. Constitution, and therefore has no real concept of the limits of presidential power. But again, let's just ignore the legal ignorance in his stance and look at it as battle in the political arena instead.

Trump is now waging multiple aggressive battles in the courts, both defending his fiscal privacy and offensively filing suits attempting to block congressional subpoenas of his banks. He's also flat-out ignoring House committee demands for testimony from his administration, erecting a stone wall not seen since the days of Richard Nixon. His strategy is plain for all to see -- slow everything down in the courts (where he can be expected to appeal every adverse ruling all the way to his pet Supreme Court) to such an extent that anything negative which might eventually come out will be delayed beyond the 2020 election. This gamble might well pay off for him, due to the notoriously slow wheels of justice in the federal court system.

Democrats should continue fighting these legal battles, of course, but they should leapfrog Trump's stonewalling and move to the next logical phase for legislators. In essence, they should just go ahead and publicly make the assumption that Trump is definitely trying to hide all sorts of things, and that his guilt is already plain for all to see. Proof will come later, but for now Democrats should argue that their main objective is to pass legislation to ensure that presidents will never again be allowed to get away with such chicanery and graft.

By pushing hard for new legislation, and by drafting actual bills which address the situation as it now stands, Democrats will bypass the debate about the extent of Trump's own guilt. By taking such guilt as a self-evident fact, Democrats can spend all their time developing laws to fix the glaring loopholes in current federal and constitutional law. As an added benefit, they will be calling the Republicans' bluff: "You complained that there was no underlying legislation to these investigations, well, here it is." Be careful what you ask for, in other words, or possibly even: "You made us do it, so deal with it."

While little noticed by the media or the public, House Democrats have already taken giant steps in this direction already, with their signature "H.R. 1" bill (the first bill introduced in the Democratic House, in January). This breathtakingly sweeping legislation would address an extensive laundry list of ethical and elections issues, as I wrote about back in January. Here's the relevant part of that laundry list, from the "For The People Act" (H.R. 1's formal name):

  • Require presidential inauguration committees to disclose expenditures and ban them from spending money on things not directly related to the inauguration.
  • Require disclosure of donations to inauguration committees from corporations, nonprofits, and government contractors.
  • Require presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of their tax returns.
  • Require the president and vice president to follow executive branch's conflict-of-interest regulations.
  • Require all presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any decisions involving the president or his family.
  • Ban the president and vice president from contracting with the federal government.
  • Give the Office of Government Ethics new enforcement powers.
  • Require public disclosure of any waivers given by the O.G.E.

Again, this is merely a small portion of what the For The People Act would accomplish. And it already puts the lie to the notion that Congress somehow has no underlying legislative reason for investigating the president, when the president has ignored or broken so many presidential norms of behavior -- many directly having to do with his own finances and businesses.

But the For The People Act is so all-encompassing that further -- and much more targeted -- legislation is also necessary. The act itself acknowledges that further legislation may be needed on any or all of the things it is trying to accomplish, meaning Democrats have already left this door open. So what they need to do now is draft individual bills aimed at reining not just this president in, but all future presidents as well.

There is simply no logical reason why the president should be exempt from the ethics rules that every other employee of the executive branch must follow. This exemption isn't unprecedented, since Congress used to also regularly exempt itself (and sometimes its own staff) from workplace and other labor laws. That hasn't worked out so well for them (most notably, on the subject of how sexual harassment claims are handled), and they're working to close such loopholes. So why not close the loopholes that exist for presidents as well?

Most modern presidents have followed ethical norms, especially when it comes to their own personal finances. Every president since Richard Nixon has publicly and voluntarily released his tax returns. They all also put their financial holdings into a blind trust, where they no longer have control over their own investments (to preclude any claims of possible conflicts of interest). Trump has done neither of these things, which is why it really is incumbent upon Congress to act. What used to be normal and expected behavior from the president is currently being ignored. Never before in American history has the presidential "emoluments clause" of the Constitution been the subject of a court battle, but Trump is currently fighting two such lawsuits (both of which were recently cleared to move forward by federal judges). Trump quite obviously believes he can just make up his own rules, and up until now there's really been nothing stopping him from doing so.

The public already knows this, but in a background sort of fashion. Democrats need to move this entire conversation to the front burner, and the best way to do that would be to draft some presidential ethics bills in the House, and aggressively move on them. The Trump investigations would still be justified, to figure out the extent of the current problems, but the real solution to those problems should be a new presidential code of ethics imposed on the White House by Congress. Specific and targeted bills (such as the "Presidential Tax Return Disclosure Act," or the "Presidential Blind Trust Act," or the "Preventing Presidential Conflicts Of Interest Act") should be introduced. Hearings should be held. Floor votes should follow.

Such legislative activity can take place on a separate track from all the investigations and court battles. Democrats would be making the political case that Trump is quite obviously guilty as sin, otherwise he wouldn't be fighting disclosure so hard, and therefore the need for specific presidential ethics legislation is already plain for all to see. In doing so, they'd only be following Trump's lead, since Trump has no qualms about declaring some political opponent guilty of all sorts of things without a shred of actual evidence. House Democrats would merely be returning the favor.

Again, Democrats should continue fighting Trump in the House committees and in the courts. But if Trump's going to stonewall and delay both of these avenues to the hilt -- as he's already giving every indication of doing -- then Democrats need to be able to fight back in the political arena while all the court cases slowly develop. These bills should be debated and passed by the House, and then all the political pressure that can be brought to bear should be directed at Mitch McConnell to get the Senate to do the right thing too. Every Democrat running for office in 2020 should campaign heavily on "draining the White House swamp." Democrats have a powerful argument to make, because Trump is so obviously trying to hide multiple things from the public eye. And they even have the Republicans themselves to blame, because right now they're making the argument that no legislation is connected to the House investigations, therefore they are somehow unjustified. So give them what they're asking for, by the truckload.

The Democrats' political message is a simple one: "Never again." Never again will Congress let a president get away with such impropriety. Never again will a president be able to profit off the presidency so blatantly. Never again will America not know where the president's income comes from. Never again can we allow the perception that our president is financially bound to some foreign power or entity. Never again will we have to rely only on any president's own sense of ethical responsibility, because that obviously doesn't work with a president who doesn't understand the basic concepts of ethics in the first place.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

39 Comments on “Democrats Should Draft Some Presidential Ethics Bills”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    obviously doesn't work with a president who doesn't understand the basic concepts of ethics in the first place

    Nor with his followers, who take glee at his every offense.

    The left-right divide has been escalated in country after country, to the point where we can't simply ascribe it to politics as usual. Russia sees advantages in right wing politics, as Mueller describes in an all-but-forgotten segment of his report.

    Your comments are good, but I wonder if it will be enough. Seem to be pitfalls in every direction.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: House Democrats are currently exploring multiple avenues in investigating President Donald Trump's possible wrongdoing.

    Possible wrongdoing!?

    Most modern presidents have followed ethical norms, especially when it comes to their own personal finances.

    But then most modern presidents and multiple of his spawn and son-in-law have not literally been bona fide money launderers via the organization of the president. Assuming this fact is true... as facts by definition are... it becomes crystal clear why the unredacted report of Robert Mueller would cause more than a little discomfort to a sitting POTUS.

    There is simply no logical reason why the president should be exempt from the ethics rules that every other employee of the executive branch must follow.

    Apparently the president believes money laundering is a "logical reason." I would wager he and his GOP toadies will be collectively obstructing all kinds of justice in order to keep that whole situation redacted and covered. Obviously, coverup of criminal wrongdoing by the president and multiple family members is only ever going to remain hidden in the short run... so we've got that to look forward to. :)

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Trump avoids impeachment but loses the 2020 election and then is convicted of multiple felonies....will the Secret Service agents assigned to him follow him to prison?

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Barr claimed today that the President could fire an investigator conducting an investigation of the President IF the President believed their was no crime committed and it would NOT be obstruction of justice!

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump avoids impeachment but loses the 2020 election and then is convicted of multiple felonies...

    Still delusional, eh Russ? :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, Democrats should continue fighting Trump in the House committees and in the courts. But if Trump's going to stonewall and delay both of these avenues to the hilt -- as he's already giving every indication of doing --

    Funny how ya'all approved of and supported Obama when he did the EXACT same thing..

    So, once again, I can't get excited about ya'all's claim of "ethics" violations.

    Because the FACTS clearly show that ya'all don't really care about ethics at all..

    Ya'all ONLY care when it's a GOP'er who has ethics violations..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, of course, ya'all are right...

    Trump should be impeached..

    Frak the ballot box!

    Go ahead and impeach President Trump..

    I double dog dare ya!! :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the GOP really wanted to play hardball, they should let "slip" to Democrats that a couple dozen or so GOPers are willing to side with Democrats on impeaching President Trump..

    Get the HOUSE all geared up towards impeachment..

    And then pull the rug out from under the Dems and show a unified front in support of the President..

    Wouldn't THAT be a hoot!??? :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can Dems Resist the Urge to Impeach?
    That would be wise, but Trump-hating House members may lack the self-restraint.

    The first polls following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report flash warning signs for congressional Democrats. It’s not looking good for their investigate-and-impeach strategy.

    An April 22-25 Washington Post/ABC survey found only 37% of voters want to “begin impeachment proceedings that could lead to [President] Trump being removed from office.” That’s down from 49% in August.

    More troubling for Democrats is the shift among independents. In August 49% of them supported starting impeachment proceedings. Today only 36% do, while 59% oppose it.

    These results are mirrored in an April 24-29 “PBS NewsHour”/NPR/Marist poll. Democrats said the Mueller report should “lead to congressional impeachment hearings” against Mr. Trump, but independents said no, 51% to 40%.

    Similarly, an April 25-28 CNN/SRRS poll found 69% of Democrats, 30% of independents and 7% of Republicans felt that Mr. Trump “should be impeached and removed from office”—while 25% of Democrats, 66% of independents and 93% of Republicans said no.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-dems-resist-the-urge-to-impeach-11556749915

    Oh yes... Impeach President Trump... That is obviously the best strategy to follow!! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Buttigieg meets with Hillary Clinton
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441632-buttigieg-meets-with-hillary-clinton

    Obviously, Buttagig wants to learn how to lose an election.. With dignity..

    No.. Wait.. That can't be it.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later”
    -Democrat John Rogers in support of abortion...

    "Kill kids now or kill kids later"

    It's the Democrat Party way...

    :^/

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Camille Paglia Can’t Say That

    Art students are trying to get the social critic fired from a job she has held for three decades.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/camille-paglia-uarts-left-deplatform/587125/

    This is what ya'all's Democrat Party has become..

    And, frankly, I find it shocking that ya'all (NEN) are completely fine with this...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    This nation doesn’t need an ethics lecture from a Democratic Party that lies more than a no-legged dog. Lord have mercy, but has Biden forgotten that Democrats — led by his old boss — passed Obamacare on the back of a cock-and-bull story so egregious that it was given the “Lie of the Year” award? President Barack Obama lied repeatedly to the American people, yet Democrats celebrate his “scandal free” administration. If Trump’s lying is a scandal, folks, we need to revisit Obama’s tenure, stat.

    Some Democrats mindlessly chant “character matters” with nary a hint of self-reflection. But there’s no character in a party that tells you your taxes went up when they went down, or that glibly tossed Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation out of the car window with Michael Avenatti behind the wheel.

    Hope springs eternal that honesty will find a place in Washington, but Democrats won’t find the high ground no matter how often Biden breathlessly lies into a television camera. Listen to how effortlessly Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez — the true heart and soul of the Democratic party — explains away her own fabrications:

    “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” she told Anderson Cooper.

    Thou shalt not bear false witness, unless thou considers thouself moral, then... knock yourself out.

    When Democrats cease their “sustained and misleading effort” to destroy the Trump presidency, we can talk about whether character matters. Until then, Biden and the lot of them can pound sand.
    https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2019/05/01/scott-jennings-democrats-lie-and-media-lets-them/3637723002/?fbclid=IwAR2TkERzyVzZ9S8Uip5swRvVfV93_eGFPKm1aDIFA1WNMULLJphwOxhEjO8

    Seriously... Ya'all want to lecture others about "ethics"???

    Maybe a good long look in the mirror is warranted before ya'all presume to lecture others..

    Tend to ya'all's own house first.. Then.. and ONLY then.. will you acquire the necessary moral fiber to presume to lecture others...

    "Thus spake the lord.."
    -Chuck

    :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Enter Joe Biden

    That Biden is considered a moderate is a testament to how far his party has moved to the left.

    That Joe Biden, at this writing the most recent candidate to file for the Democratic presidential nomination, is considered a moderate is a testament both to how far and rapidly his party has moved to the left and to the portward skew of the national press.

    A Democratic politician now qualifies as a moderate if he believes that 180 million Americans should not be forcibly removed from private health insurance and put in a government system; that third-trimester abortions should be restricted; and that deportation must continue to be a key part of our immigration regime. All of these were positions that liberal Democrats considered compatible with their creed when Biden was vice president, less than three years ago. All of them are still positions held by millions of Americans who regularly vote for Democrats. But all of them are being anathematized by the left-wing activists who hold disproportionate sway in the party’s primaries.

    In the progressive media, Biden is even being slammed because his indictment of President Donald Trump has not been widened into an indictment of America for electing him.

    The effort to win the primaries may make Biden move further left himself: He has already denounced our legal system as “white man’s law,” possibly because it respects the presumption of innocence. (Reporters may wish to get some clarity from him on this question.) Were he to get the nomination, his alleged moderation would become a key selling point.

    Step outside the funhouse mirror of Twitter. Biden has for his entire career been a strong, albeit not wholly consistent, supporter of every left-wing cause from higher taxes to hate-crimes laws to liberal judicial activism. Conservatives should not let themselves be fooled into thinking he is a moderate, and neither should actual moderates.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/joe-biden-presidential-campaign-democratic-party-politics/

    I am sincerely curious...

    Do you believe the that massive Left ward push of the Democrat Party will force Biden to move Left with them??

    And do you believe that such a Left ward push for Biden will change Biden??

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Enter Joe Biden

    That Biden is considered a moderate is a testament to how far his party has moved to the left.

    That Joe Biden, at this writing the most recent candidate to file for the Democratic presidential nomination, is considered a moderate is a testament both to how far and rapidly his party has moved to the left and to the portward skew of the national press.

    A Democratic politician now qualifies as a moderate if he believes that 180 million Americans should not be forcibly removed from private health insurance and put in a government system; that third-trimester abortions should be restricted; and that deportation must continue to be a key part of our immigration regime. All of these were positions that liberal Democrats considered compatible with their creed when Biden was vice president, less than three years ago. All of them are still positions held by millions of Americans who regularly vote for Democrats. But all of them are being anathematized by the left-wing activists who hold disproportionate sway in the party’s primaries.

    In the progressive media, Biden is even being slammed because his indictment of President Donald Trump has not been widened into an indictment of America for electing him.

    The effort to win the primaries may make Biden move further left himself: He has already denounced our legal system as “white man’s law,” possibly because it respects the presumption of innocence. (Reporters may wish to get some clarity from him on this question.) Were he to get the nomination, his alleged moderation would become a key selling point.

    Step outside the funhouse mirror of Twitter. Biden has for his entire career been a strong, albeit not wholly consistent, supporter of every left-wing cause from higher taxes to hate-crimes laws to liberal judicial activism. Conservatives should not let themselves be fooled into thinking he is a moderate, and neither should actual moderates.
    https://tinyurl.com/y3kymv7t

    I am sincerely curious...

    Do you believe the that massive Left ward push of the Democrat Party will force Biden to move Left with them??

    And do you believe that such a Left ward push for Biden will change Biden??

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    BARR EATS DEMOCRATS FOR BREAKFAST

    Barr exposed the rampant desperation of Trump’s foes

    They smeared him, called him a liar and said he should resign. The same Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who tried to assassinate the character of Judge Brett Kavanaugh last year pulled the same stunt on Bill Barr — with the same result.

    They failed because, once again, they were throwing mud while shooting blanks.

    Despite the Dems’ desperate efforts to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination with false accusations, he is now on the Supreme Court. Barr was obviously prepared for his mud bath and was unflappable in the face of Wednesday’s mean-spirited assault, proving himself to be a rock-solid attorney general.

    As he said at his confirmation hearing, “I won’t be bullied,” and he wasn’t.
    https://nypost.com/2019/05/01/barr-exposed-the-rampant-desperation-of-trumps-foes/

    Poor Democrats.. They are so utterly demoralized and decimated, all they can do is feebly grab for minute straws that they think will keep the RUSSIA COLLUSION dream afloat...

    What a sad day for the Democrat Party :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    “How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis? And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.”
    -Attorney General William Barr

    Word....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW..

    MOOSE POOP!!!! MOOSE POOP I TELL YOU!!!!

    Man stopped with moose poop at Alaska airport told agents it’s for politicians, TSA says
    https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nation-world/national/article229864959.html

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW..

    MOOSE POOP!!!! MOOSE POOP I TELL YOU!!!!

    For the unenlightened masses.. :D

    Friday Talking Points [46] -- Moose Poop!
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/09/05/friday-talking-points-46-moose-poop/

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I'm glad to see you are back...and I hope your mount didn't come to a sad ending.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/98/29/4598298da9059f52b2e734512ba2d852.jpg

    There isn't a huge difference between the Trump Presidency and a balky auto transmission.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Democrats.... should just go ahead and publicly make the assumption that Trump is definitely trying to hide all sorts of things, and that his guilt is already plain for all to see. Proof will come later..."

    Well, you did say it would be a political move and not a legal one. I suppose it could work on people that assume that Trump is guilty and would be willing to overlook that the Dems are proposing legislation to make sure that what hasn't been proven to happen will never happen again.

    But it also sets a dangerous precedent.

    Now we can assume that anyone is guilty of anything
    and worry aboot proving it later.

    Now I can assume without waiting for proof that you, CW, are funded by Pelosi, the DNC and DCCC and that this is the reason you keep parroting the Democratic party line bullshit and are trying to hide all sorts of things that would expose the bullshit and give citizens other choices such as One Demand.

    "Sometimes he likes to whistle through his nose,
    While picking up a peanut with his toes.
    If Johnny Morris had him on his show,
    You'd hear the Furher's favorite say 'Hello.'"
    - Mr. Slater's Parrot
    Bonzo Dog Band

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I think we can assume that CW's car did not have a sad ending.

    Why now we can even assume that there was nothing wrong with his car and he was just using that as an excuse to play hooky while he got a happy ending. :D

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you believe the that massive Left ward push of the Democrat Party will force Biden to move Left with them??

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NOT.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Democrats.... should just go ahead and publicly make the assumption that Trump is definitely trying to hide all sorts of things, and that his guilt is already plain for all to see. Proof will come later..."

    "I really hate her....
    I'll think of a reason later"

    -Lee Ann Womack

    So, basically throw out centuries of legal jurisprudence of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....

    SOLELY to further a partisan/ideological agenda..

    REALLY!!???

    It's a very small itty bitty step from THAT to "Let's just kill Trump. He probably deserves it..."

    I never thought I would see the day where Weigantians en masse would ignore the law, ignore what's morally and ethically right and just go with blatant nekkid partisanship..

    And YA'ALL want to presume to lecture on ETHICS!!!????

    The Democrats' political message is a simple one: "Never again." Never again will Congress let a president get away with such impropriety. Never again will a president be able to profit off the presidency so blatantly. Never again will America not know where the president's income comes from. Never again can we allow the perception that our president is financially bound to some foreign power or entity. Never again will we have to rely only on any president's own sense of ethical responsibility, because that obviously doesn't work with a president who doesn't understand the basic concepts of ethics in the first place.

    IOW.....

    NEVER AGAIN will we let the law or ethics or morality stop us from furthering our own political agenda, by hook or by crook...

    WOW..... Just... WOW...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrat Brings Toy Chicken and KFC Bucket to Hearing to Mock Barr’s No-Show
    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/house-democrat-brings-toy-chicken-and-kfc-bucket-to-hearing-to-mock-barrs-no-show/

    There is your "serious" Democrats.. :eyeroll:

    Wonder if they brought this stuff when AG Holder was too chicken to appear before Congress...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaker Pelosi accuses Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime: ‘He lied to Congress’

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/nancy-pelosi-accuses-william-barr-of-committing-a-crime.html

    "We don't need any FACTS to support our accusations. We said it and that is all the evidence that is needed..."
    -Democrat Party

    :eyeroll:

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know how many times the word "Woman" is mentioned in the Constitution?

    Zero.

    That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow
    -Democrat Presidential Candidate Eric Swalwell

    This is the kind of moron that Democrats are running..

    It's no wonder they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning..

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Face it Weigantians, Trumps 'sin' was NOT collusion, was NOT conspiracy, was NOT hacking Dem emails, was NOT getting dirt on Hillary from Russians, was NOT obstruction, was NOT paying off hookers to keep quit, was NOT a single one of the thousand things you keep citing, those are all PROXY sins for the one REAL SIN - the bastard won the election when all the Dem news media and all the Dem polltakers said he never had even a ghost of a chance!

    Therefore, congress needs to immediately draft "ethics legislation" to the effect, "THOU GAWDAM REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE SHALT NOT DEFEAT OUR SURE-THING DEMOCRAT!!!, (Under penalty of being forbidden to patronize hookers forever!!!, that would show him.)

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Speaker Pelosi accuses Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime: ‘He lied to Congress’

    Yeah, unlike Holder, who wrapped his disdain for Congress in legitimate legal theory, Barr just simply lies, then tries to back fill.

    It's failing, of course. But Barr doesn't care, because slowing it all down is his goal.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, unlike Holder, who wrapped his disdain for Congress in legitimate legal theory, Barr just simply lies, then tries to back fill.

    Any FACTS to support that claim??

    Of course not..

    Ya'all have made it PERFECTLY CLEAR you don't want nor need FACTS...

    Ya'all have yer hate and yer intolerance and THAT is all you need..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face it Weigantians, Trumps 'sin' was NOT collusion, was NOT conspiracy, was NOT hacking Dem emails, was NOT getting dirt on Hillary from Russians, was NOT obstruction, was NOT paying off hookers to keep quit, was NOT a single one of the thousand things you keep citing, those are all PROXY sins for the one REAL SIN - the bastard won the election when all the Dem news media and all the Dem polltakers said he never had even a ghost of a chance!

    Therefore, congress needs to immediately draft "ethics legislation" to the effect, "THOU GAWDAM REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE SHALT NOT DEFEAT OUR SURE-THING DEMOCRAT!!!, (Under penalty of being forbidden to patronize hookers forever!!!, that would show him.)

    More factual words were never spoken...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK so we have Balthasar and Pelosi accusing AG Barr of lying...

    Facts to support???

    Non-existent....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html

    So... Obama's FBI sent a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to gain opposition research...

    And no one here is bothered by that...

    Contrast that to President Trump's FBI sending in a spy to the Biden campaign.. Or the Buttagig campaign...

    Ya'all would lose your frakin' minds...

    Proving beyond ANY doubt that ALL that matters is Republican vs Democrat...

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Obama's FBI sent a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to gain opposition research...

    Well, that finally makes more sense. I always wondered about Papandopoulis, and how they knew so much about him.

    And good, good for them to follow up in a way that wouldn't affect the campaign.

    And as for Biden? If he, or anyone working for him was in contact with the, say, Chinese, wouldn't you want to know? Yer blowin' hot air.

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [13]

    If Trump’s lying is a scandal, folks, we need to revisit Obama’s tenure, stat.

    Obama was wrong for claiming that people would definitely be able to keep their doctor with the ACA. The ACA did not cause people to lose their doctor, that was the decision of the insurance providers. Regardless, Obama admitted he was wrong to claim that you could keep your doctor and apologized to the American people for his error.

    Tenure revisited.

    Glad you brought up Obama’s one lie. Now why don’t you explain Trump’s 10,000 lies in just over 2 years!

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So... Obama's FBI sent a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to gain opposition research...

    And no one here is bothered by that...

    Where does it say they were sent in to gather “opposition research”? If it was opposition research, why didn’t Obama announce Trump was being investigated by the FBI? Opposition research does not do you any good once the election is over. They sent someone in to question about all of the Russian contacts that occurred with Trump campaign members... you remember them, the ones they have lied about continuously!

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LWYH - Where does it say they were sent in to gather “opposition research”?

    By conflating it with Global GPS, which was, originally oppo research that was turned into raw data for the FBI. The FBI then opened an investigation that they assert was the same thing.

    It's just another of a million word games they play every day.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you really have that low an opinion of the FBI, Balthasar?

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's wait and see what the IG says.

Comments for this article are closed.