I said it in 2016 and was proven right... :D

I'll say it again...

Pennsylvania is a MAGA State.. :D

Because you brought it up..

I simply was pointing out that results garner attention; good intentions not so much.

So, do you think that DH should use BLM tactics to further his cause???

i accept the definition of the term you provided, but not the "completely and utterly exonerated" claim. i would say that since there's been no trial, no dismissal, no acquittal, no impeachment, no charges filed, the exoneration is partial. as i mentioned earlier, the lack of evidence to confirm that a crime is committed is not the same as the presence of evidence that a crime was not committed. at least in theory, new evidence could someday be uncovered that would justify filing charges of conspiracy. i happen not to believe that it ever will, but it's still technically possible. therefore the exoneration is partial.

JL

BLM got National attention when they started destroying people's lives and businesses and killing cops.....

I dunno WHY you would think that THAT is a worthy process to emulate.. :eyeroll:

I dunno WHY you would think that I think THAT is worthy process to emulate...

I simply was pointing out that results garner attention; good intentions not so much.

BLM got National attention when they started destroying people's lives and businesses and killing cops.....

I dunno WHY you would think that THAT is a worthy process to emulate.. :eyeroll:

Thanks for tagging in and taking over this conversation with Don Harris in my absence — mini fire that had to be put out kept me from responding to his reply.

That DH thinks people are going to respond positively to OneDemand if they just hear about it is delusional. Proof: No one who has heard about it to date has jumped on board. No word of mouth campaign has surfaced.

DH gets frustrated that I keep asking the same questions about OneDemand, but he does not seem to realize that these questions aren’t being re-asked because I forgot his answers — it’s because his answers do not actually answer the questions.

How will anyone know which write in voters are doing so as a form of protest and which ones are actually voting for Homer Simpson?

How does accepting only small donations stop corruption in politics if we have already established that $2800 might get you a t-shirt, but it won’t buy you a Senator? Microsoft, Boeing, and Amazon are all major donors to my Senators. They are also the employers of a good portion of the voters in this area. So are my Senators corrupt because they back legislation that these corporations want, or are they doing their jobs by voting for what their constituents want? You can’t make a call either way based on generalizations, you have to look at the specifics, case by case to have any hope of making that determination.

This is why overly simple solutions rarely ever solve complex problems!

And holy hell why would anyone think that grassroots movements — like BLM, for example — got national attention prior to them holding rallies and organizing protests? No news media wrote an article about BLM’s founders having an idea that they believe will be effective and then they got organized and took action!

Just wanted to say thanks and that you gave great responses (as always!).

Assuming you would never rob my house doesn't mean that no one else will.

So you're somehow equating the robbing of your house with political candidates giving favors to donors who contribute a paltry $2,800 to their campaign. I see your problem, Don.

For this reason, even 7-11 has a lock on their door despite being open 24/7/365.

Do you live at 7-11 or something? What does 7-11 have to do with anybody robbing your "house"? What do locks on doors have to do with political contributions? Do you think a person who would give a larger donation than you is somehow indicative of someone who would rob somebody? I see your problem, Don.

If there are no big money contributors then there is no question aboot the motivations of the big money contributors because there are no big money contributors.

If your plan is to rid the world of "big money contributors," then you're quite obviously missing the huge forest for the tiny little trees. I do see your problem, Don.

You do provide a perfect example of how those that can afford big money contributions fail to see the perspective of those that can't.

If you're saying that those who can afford to contribute more are incapable of understanding those who can't, then you're even more ignorant than you describe yourself, which I did not think was possible since you describe yourself in such lowly terms.

If all a citizen can afford is 100 or 200 dollars in contributions it seems insignificant and pointless when compared to a 2800 dollar contribution.

I disagree. It's never insignificant when a citizen who gives $100 who might be giving 10% of his weekly income... which is far more than I'm giving.

If this were not true and a concern for many citizens then the candidates that are pretending to be small donor candidates would not be touting their small contributions and trying to pass off small contribution campaigns as small donor campaigns.

As I have said many times, the vast majority of citizens are already small donor candidates who give $0 dollars. This is a fact that undoubtedly will remain ever thus.

Socialism? Really?

Yes. Trying to put people in boxes that make them monetarily equal is what socialism does. Our government has already taken care of that exercise in socialism by setting the maximum contribution figure at $2,800. Your problem is that you think that amount is too large and keeps people from contributing. I disagree that not being able to contribute the maximum is why people don't contribute. Why don't you endeavor to get Congress to change the maximum contribution laws? TYA.

Life doesn't work that way?

No, it damn sure does not.

Socialism-bad. It has been labeled as socialism so it doesn't have to be thought aboot because socialism is bad.

I didn't say any of that, Don, you effing moron. I said the government has already taken care of the aspect that makes us equal, and that is by granting us all a vote that generally counts in the same amount. Surely you realize that this equality happened over time and didn't exist in the beginning of the Republic. There was a time when only rich white landowners of a certain means were allowed to cast a vote. Fast forward to today where every citizen has a vote that generally makes them equal in "theory"... but in "practice" we still have voter suppression, etc.

This is how things are so just accept them is not an acceptable argument.

I didn't say that either.

You are right that everyone's vote is equal.

It's the ultimate exercise in levelling the playing field. There are also indeed limits on individual contributions which also level the playing field to a degree; you just disagree on the amount.

But voting against the big money candidates by using a write in vote is not giving up anything.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the vast majority of states with only a few exceptions, state statutes do not allow for write-in candidates at all or unless they are pre-approved official write-in candidates. I do encourage all the activists to "burn" their vote so that the centrist voters who have no intention of forfeiting their right to elect their representatives are the ones doing all the choosing... since I'm a centrist.

It is using our votes the way they were intended to be used.

Tell that to the vast majority of states that prove otherwise.

If citizens don't want candidates to take big money but keep voting for them when they take big money the candidates have no incentive to not take big money.

The government already limits individual donors from giving big money. Already been covered ad nauseam. If you don't like the amount they set, why don't you work toward getting Congress or Courts to change the laws regarding political contributions?

The vote may not be officially counted in every state, but it will counted in the places where write in votes are counted. It can start there and expand in future elections to other places.

No it can't unless you change the laws in 40 states. Write-in votes are only accepted in 10 states and DC where they are counted. Eight states allow no write-in votes at all... already covered ad nauseam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/

Or should every state be lowered to the lowest common denominator of not counting or allowing write in votes?

It's not my call, Don. I don't concern myself with trying to force my personal views about voting on every other person or state; that's your thing.

Even in some states where write in votes are not counted in the total to elect a candidate to office or disallowed when cast the numbers of these votes can still be obtained.

How would you differentiate those actually voting for an official write-in versus the idiots taking your ignorant advice and "burning" their vote. You can't and never could.

This is another example of you only seeing through your short term perspective that all that matters is who wins the current election and refusing to accept that other people may prefer taking a long term approach to work to solve a long term problem and think and vote beyond just the current election.

No, moron, it isn't. This is another example of you telling me what I think. Anyone telling me they know what I'm thinking is not just a fool but a damn fool.

As for your most people are giving 0 dollars, that's explained above in your failure to see the perspective of those that can only afford to give 100 or 200 dollars.

So you're a damn fool that believes he knows what I'm thinking. Nothing new around here. Take a number and get in line. This board has several trolls that play that ridiculous nonsensical game that only proves you they have no argument and suck at debate.

I have no degrees. But that does not mean I am not educated. School/college is not the only place to gain knowledge.

Your comments and your belief that you know what others are thinking betray the ridiculous notion that you are educated. If you wish to appear "knowledgeable," you should divest yourself of the ridiculous notion that you know what anyone else is thinking. It's lousy debate form and utter cluelessness all rolled into one.

You may like to think that big money contributors are picking up the slack and you may well have that as your intention.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't think that $2,800 is a "big money" contribution. Your problem is that you keep applying your own ridiculous definitions to everyone else and judging them based on your beliefs. If I don't think $2,800 is big money, then I obviously don't think I'm a "big money contributor." Your lack of knowledge is demonstrable and oozes from your every comment box.

But you are going aboot it the wrong way.

If choosing a candidate on my ballot is the "wrong way," then I am gloriously wrong every time there is an election in which I am allowed to exercise my right to vote for my representatives.

You are perpetuating the problem, providing cover for big money contributors that do not have honorable intentions and discouraging those that might contribute if they didn't feel their contributions would be insignificant compared to yours.

You are full of shit all the way up to your tiny little uneducated brain. :)

To not perpetuate the problem, provide cover for dishonorable big money contributors and discourage those that might contribute if they felt their contributions were equal, a person that wants to help those that can only afford small contributions or none at all could make small contributions to many small donor candidates so they would only be helping those that can only afford small contributions or none.

This is America, Don. The federal government already places me in a little box and limits my contributions. Why on Earth would I voluntarily allow myself to be limited by your ridiculously smaller little sand box?

I have no intention whatsoever of joining you and your ilk in your tiny self-imposed sand box, and I can assure you that I will be happily voting and choosing my representatives while y'all are sitting on your asses and your principles in your little boxes and happily pounding sand. :)

That should make him elligible to be another "bored troll"!

Oh come on!!!!

Seeing these impotent whiners hysterically flail and flop around trying to mainstream their lunacy and delusions and FAILING at every juncture??

That's it's own reward.. :D

Or it could be that I am just easily amused... :D

"Yer easily amused. Base clear!!"

:D

What I'm actually missing is motivation/satisfactio/stimulation to participate here.

So you're a bored troll? :)

What I'm actually missing is motivation/satisfactio/stimulation to participate here.

You and Kick and your neighbors think 2800 dollars is okay.

Okay!? Wrong. It's simply the federally defined limit on individual contributions that rises with inflation... it's neither correct or incorrect. Some can afford it and some can't... so what? What it is, is an amount that might get you a lunch at a political function and maybe a t-shirt or politically branded item and nothing more. What it isn't is an amount sufficient to buy a politician. Some can afford the maximum contribution and some can't. I give maximum contributions to multiple candidates. Sometimes I even get a bumper sticker for it. I have quite a collection of political bumper stickers, and I inherited my father's collection too.

Still, I've never bought a single favor from any politician for a maximum individual contribution. Best thing I ever did get from a politician was a hug from the Governor of Texas who shook the hands of all my colleagues and then promptly kissed me on the cheek and hugged me. Well, she was my babysitter and a close friend to my family, which I hadn't revealed to any of them beforehand. It was awesome to see their jaws drop when they got handshakes while I got hugs and kisses. Want to know how many political favors I got from the Governor of Texas whom I knew intimately since I was a toddler? Zero. Not a single one.

I think anything over 200 dollars is too much because I believe it should be an amount that most citizens can afford which you admitted 2800 dollars is not.

You seem to want to turn democracy into an exercise in socialism where everyone contributes some kind of "lowest common denominator." Life doesn't work that way, Don. What makes eligible voters in the United States equal is that their vote generally counts as much as everyone else's. In fact, withholding your vote or voting in a manner where your vote won't be counted at all is giving up the one thing you have that actually does level the playing field... your vote, which is generally free.

As far as choosing to give money to political candidates and political ventures, the vast majority of people are already giving less than $200 to a myriad of good causes when they make their contributions in the amount of $0 dollars and zero cents. I like to think that the larger contributors are simply pulling up the slack for those apathetic individuals who couldn't care less to contribute and for those who genuinely care but can't afford to contribute, and if the self-described uneducated and "average citizen" named Don Harris doesn't like it or can't understand it, I seriously couldn't care less. :)

That being said, is it unrealistic to even hope that the Kicks of the land of Weigantia, couldn't some day, if not let it die, at least MOVE ON, for gawdsake?

I see you're still missing the big picture, Stucki. :)

Please, in 20 years time they will mostly have been dead for over 10 years. If not from old age and bitterness, then from suicide.

Factually accurate that a disproportionate number of voters for Trump are now "pushing up daisies and/or daffodils."

They could barely survive having a BLACK president, but a woman in the White House, or GOD FORBID a gay... they’ll exercise their 2nd Amendment right to destroy the resale value of their property in mass numbers!

Close your eyes and imagine this: How ape shit crazy they became when a woman of color was simply living in the White House. Now imagine a woman of color being elected either President or Vice President of the United States. Their heads would definitely explode. :)

Michale claims a judge’s ruling was made strictly for partisan reasons instead of being based on case law, precedent, and a common sense reading of the Constitution...

The Constitution is clear on this issue too; it's not even a close call. Trump's lawyers know this; their primary aim is to stall for time.

HOLY HELL THAT’S the typical crap that gets spewed on here by him every single day!

Yes, sir, and no matter how many times he spews that utter nonsensical bullshit, it's still just his totally uninformed opinion and nothing more... and so shall remain ever thus. :)

exonerated is the wrong word, that means completely cleared of suspicion. mueller found that suspicion was warranted, but there was no evidence to corroborate. that's grounds for dismissal or acquittal on any criminal charges, but it's not exoneration.

Yes, sir. Absolutely 100% correct.

We've actually discussed all this ad nauseam when Michale incorrectly stated that Manafort was "completely exonerated" on all the charges he wasn't found guilty of in his jury trial. Not being found guilty by a jury isn't the same as "complete exoneration." Same principle here.

Also, Mueller was never going to indict Trump for any charges, and therefore Mueller could never exonerate a person he was never going to indict based on the longstanding rule written by Nixon's collaborators in the DOJ.

Hillary wasn't completely exonerated of anything either. The DOJ simply declined to prosecute her.

So to recap: Manafort was found guilty on multiple charges and not found guilty on multiple others; however, not being found guilty isn't the equivalent of being "completely exonerated." Indeed, he plead guilty on every single one of the other charges and now sits in prison.

Hillary was not completely exonerated of anything because she was indeed never charged with anything.

Mueller made the decision that Donald Trump was never going to be charged with anything because he is the sitting president of the United States. Mueller also made clear in his report that he was preserving the record and that Trump could be charged with multiple counts after he is no longer president.

Interestingly, Mueller also made the following observation regarding Trump:

The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns...

Indeed, Appendix D contains quite an impressive list of cases that were spun off the Mueller investigation due to its limited scope. I would wager that one of those redacted cases is called "United States v. Wikileaks" -- or something similar to that effect -- and that an investigation into the Trump campaign's conspiracy with a the cutout of the "Russian government" is "continuing robustly."

If sufficient evidence of such a conspiracy with WikiLeaks exists, under DOJ current guidelines, the sitting POTUS still would not be charged with said conspiracy until he no longer held the office; however, all the other actors in such a conspiracy could be charged immediately. Indeed, they've already indicted Roger Stone with related issues. :)

Comment #238 puts that claim to lie.. :D

Once again, Democrats turn on Democrats as the heat is rising.. :D

you're completely off-base discussing don's idea.

Don? I know nothing of this "Don," but I like the pie idea.

many people like yourself criticize pie for what it is not...

I have been known to criticize pie when it is not chocolate. :)

I am also constrained to point out that Congress (and ya'all, incidentally) have PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that ya'all are INCAPABLE of moving on when it comes to the shiny Trump-bashing bludgeons..

Trump... oh.. sorry.. The entire Mueller report, including the 2% that's redacted, could have been released and PRESIDENT Trump could have said or done NOTHING about it and ya'all would STILL be exactly where ya'all are now...

So, please... Spew that fairy tale that ya'all and/or Congress would have "moved on" except for blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaaa...

Very well said, EM. :)

Trump didn't block anything..

It was AG Barr who was forced to redact 2% of the report and he only did that to obey the law..

A LAW, I remind you, that was created and enacted by DEMOCRATS to protect DEMOCRATS...

Of course yer not..

But that assessment is only based on your Party slavery and not on facts or reality. Something you have PROVEN you can completely ignore when yer Party slavery demands it..

Thank you for agreeing with me..

Let's see what the SCOTUS says about it, shall we??? :D

"Yer gonna lose"
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

So, there were four main findings from the Mueller report:

But only ONE part is relevant to the question at hand. The question that was the ENTIRE reason for the Mueller investigation to begin with..

Part 1
1. Trump and his entourage did not conspire to break election laws with the Russians

And THAT's the one..

So, are you conceding that President Trump is completely exonerated from Russia Collusion???

Of course the party before country crowd (you know who you are) won't accept the documented evidence,

Exactly... Could not have said it better myself.

The PARTY before COUNTRY crowd won't accept the DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that there was NO RUSSIA COLLUSION on the part of **ANY** American..

You ARE taking a Sherman!!! :D

Oh, and Barr lied to congress, lied and misrepresented Mueller's findings,

Not factually accurate...

And you were doing SOO well... :(

. There are only so many paid talking heads jobs on Fox News, and the competition is going to be fierce!

Kinda ironic when you consider that all the scumbags in Odumbo's administration who orchestrated this witch hunt are talking heads for the various media outlets.

But THAT'S ok, because they have -Ds after their names..

Move on to what? It seems that Trump doesn't want anybody looking into anything.

There are several investigations ongoing. There's the emoluments question, the taxes, the Trump Tower Moscow, and others that weren't even looked at by Mueller. Surely Congress has a stake in those.

Look, CRS, if Trump hadn't blocked access to the Mueller report, my guess is that it WOULD all have been over by now, and Congress would have moved on.

Trump is his own enemy.

I brought up your Sam Harris podcast, and made it to about the 20 min point, where my eyelids were getting awful heavy, and I gave up.

It's illustrative that Harris refers to the guest's presentation of his take on the Mueller report with the terms "post-mortem", and "autopsy", clearly implying that he considers the report a "dead" issue.

However, while nobody in the land of Weigantia is EVER about to agree with Michale that it boils down to pretty much of an exhoneration of Trump, it's pretty hard not to conclude that it at least (Harris probably thinks regretfully) certainly amounts to absolving him of criminal activity.

That being said, is it unrealistic to even hope that the Kicks of the land of Weigantia, couldn't some day, if not let it die, at least MOVE ON, for gawdsake?

Good breakdown! Sorta reminds me of Republican Justin Amash's over the weekend.

And in post [222] you could add all of the present obstruction still being carried on.

Today, Gorsuch sided with liberals on an issue of native rights. Roberts has been showing his independence lately too. I'm not sure that SCOTUS would fall in Trump's direction if any of this gets to them.

Of course the party before country crowd (you know who you are) won't accept the documented evidence, but in 20 years time they will all be denying they voted for him.

Please, in 20 years time they will mostly have been dead for over 10 years. If not from old age and bitterness, then from suicide. They could barely survive having a BLACK president, but a woman in the White House, or GOD FORBID a gay... they’ll exercise their 2nd Amendment right to destroy the resale value of their property in mass numbers!

HOLY HELL THAT'S SHOCKING!!!!!

Michale claims a judge’s ruling was made strictly for partisan reasons instead of being based on case law, precedent, and a common sense reading of the Constitution...

HOLY HELL THAT’S the typical crap that gets spewed on here by him every single day!

https://samharris.org/podcasts/157-mueller-report-really-say/

That is how ideas get put into action. Citizens are informed aboot the ideas by the media- which is their job to provide information that citizens are not getting through other sources.

People don't join things and then find out it exists after they start supporting it. It just doesn't work that way.

What movement has ever started with just one person’s concept getting national attention and then it magically formed into an actual organization?

Saying that it has to be shown to work before it gets into the public discourse is the equivalent of the Alabama abortion law that says a woman can only get an abortion if she doesn't know she is pregnant.

So you are saying that everyone’s idea deserves being covered by the media? No? Then why should your idea deserve air time and not everyone else’s? How many great organizations do you think are out there struggling to raise the support they need to exist deserve to wait for their moment in the spotlight so your untried, unsupported, and unrealistic idea can be made into a reality instantly by being promoted nationally?

As for your Alabama abortion comparison (which I still do not fully understand what point you think you are making) does that mean just knowing about abortion will allow a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Should we be telling women they can also terminate unwanted pregnancies with untested, theoretical solutions???

Maybe those theories will work, maybe not, but we won’t know until we try, right?!?

Now will you address the corruption of the big money Democrats or is all you can do is make/repeat ridiculous arguments that are just designed to avoid addressing the reality of the corruption of the big money Democrats?

As soon as you present evidence of actual corruption having been committed, we can address it! Just accepting the legally allowed contributions does not fit the legal definition for “corruption”.

Part 1
1. Trump and his entourage did not conspire to break election laws with the Russians

2.a Trump and his entourage coordinated the release of stolen emails via Wikileaks, including meetings with officers from Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks.

2.b Trump and many of his entourage (e.g. Flynn) lied about their meetings with Russians, and their involvement with Russians, including Trump Moscow, the Trump Tower meeting (orphans my ass), and many, many more instances.

3. Trump and Flynn tried to enlist hackers to find Hillary's imaginary 30,000 emails, but they failed due to incompetence and the fact the emails didn't even exist.

Part 2
4. Trump tried repeatedly to obstruct the investigation, and in many cases he was saved from the more illegal attempts by his staff refusing to break the law on his behalf.

Net net - he is a liar (no news there); incompetent (we knew that in the 1980s); venal (also well known); and guilty of obstruction of justice, but the Attorney General refuses to indict him because of partisan politics.

Of course the party before country crowd (you know who you are) won't accept the documented evidence, but in 20 years time they will all be denying they voted for him. In fact, in 20 years time the results from the 2016 election, in the minds of the remaining voters, will likely be 90% Hillary, 10% other.

Context.

I did not see that you were responding to Warren’s comment. That said, One Demand is still a delusional dream.

Most citizens can't afford to make even one 2800 dollars contribution much less one to a primary and general campaign and to many candidates.

Most cannot, but for others $2800 is not a problem. When people say they want Big Money out of our elections/politics, what exactly are they saying? What amount do most citizens consider to be “too much”? I am fairly sure that most citizens do not realize that $2800 is the cap on individual donations.

In fact, this motivated me to take a micro-poll of my neighbors at our yearly street Yard Sale this morning. I live outside of Seattle, so it should not surprise you that most people tend to hold more liberal views.

Of the 15 registered voters I asked “Do you believe we need to get Big Money out of elections/politics?”, all 15 said “Yes!”

I asked them how much do they consider to be a problem? Two felt we should have elections that are completely funded by the government. The other 13 gave answers that ranged between $100,000 to unlimited amounts. Most said it was corporations, not individual donors, that they were concerned with (just a side note, not a question that I asked).

When I asked the 13 if the current $2800 donation limit was what they considered to be the cause of the corruption, all 13 said “No”. All 13 said that they believed $2800 was not enough to “buy” even a local politician, much less one on the national level!

Granted, this was just one neighborhood poll that was quickly thrown together, but it was clear that most believed that the campaign donations were NOT where people believe the problem is.

Most citizens can afford to make a contribution or two less than 200 dollars.

What are you basing this on? What data?

Strange, when I pointed out how the non-profit I ran had donors that ranged from $10 to those that gave up to $1000, and that we treated those giving more different than those giving the least, you scoffed that I would try to compare my little organization (that is located in thousands of cities across all 50 states and 13 foreign countries) and how it treated donors differently, to your non-existent dream and how politicians treat their donors.

Of course I have explained why the politicians would meet the demand.

10% of citizens pledging just 100 dollars to small donor candidiates now before the election would total over 1 billion dollars and is just the tip of the iceberg.

You have explained this before, and it is still just as delusional as it was the first time you stated it! “10% of citizens pledging just 100 dollars”...

10% of citizens?

Is that 10% of all citizens, 10% of voting aged citizens, 10% of registered voters, or 10% of people who give to political campaigns?
I am pretty sure it is 10% of the entire population — which means that $1 billion dream has to be split up over however many individual campaigns there are in this country during any given election.

PACs and SuperPAC’s are the real problem. Even if a candidate claims not to have any ties to a PAC, that doesn’t stop the PAC from supporting their campaign with ads and flyers. This is where all the “dark money” is funneled...not the candidates campaigns! One Demand offers citizens what defense against the influence of SuperPACs? None!

CW is one of those people.

Do you harass others as much as you do CW? Do you find new targets to pitch One Demand to, or do you keep going back to the ones that have already refused to promote an organization that exists only in your hopes and dreams?

Continued...

Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records
The judge, Amit Mehta, ruled that Congress can investigate the president without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/judge-upholds-dem-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records-1335370

An Odumbo Judge sided with Dumbocrats...

HOLY HELL THAT'S SHOCKING!!!!!

The related DOJ memo said McGahn, like other senior advisers to a president, has "immunity" from being compelled to testify about his official duties.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-mcgahn-house-hearing

Executive Privilege, snowflakes.. :D

Ya'all LOVED it when Odumbo exercised it...

So, you won't have ANY problem with President Trump invoking it.. :D

I got my socks dryin in the microwave
Hair on my back I don't plan to shave
I got the house to myself while the wife's away
I'll be rockin all night
Yeah I think I'll drink me an ice cold brew
Lounge in my boxers like I used to do
There'll be no Ally McBeal on the tube
No...I'll be watchin the fight

Well it's a great day to be a guy
Playin cards my buddies until sunrise
You know I never thought that my neighbor would
Be sunbathing topless Lord she sure looks good
-Cletus

:D

None of this would have happened without the Mueller report's conclusion that the evidence did not establish conspiracy or coordination. If Democrats could still claim that Trump and Russia conspired in 2016, they would still have the upper hand. But after Mueller, that claim is no longer possible, and Democratic hopes are dwindling.

And their desperate and pathetic attempts to remain relevant makes for laughable political theater.. :D

And yet, here I am.. Day in and day out..

Well, one has ta have a hobby... :D

In particular, allegations that the president obstructed justice to cover up a conspiracy were transformed into allegations that he obstructed an investigation into a crime that prosecutors could not say actually occurred. Although it is legally possible to pursue an obstruction case without an underlying crime, a critical element of obstruction — knowledge of guilt — disappeared the moment Mueller's report was released.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-mueller-changed-everything

Without being able to prove an actual crime took place, the "whataboutisms" of obstruction to the investigation of said NON-crime is laughable...

But hell.. I'll be happy to debate ya'all on yer silly and laughable 'whataboutisms'..

But it does no good to debate with people who can't accept the basic and obvious facts...

If ya'all can't accept reality, then debating with ya'all is like talking to a brick wall..

It wasn't Mueller's job to find "suspicion".. It was his job to find FACTS to support the "suspicion"..

"suspicion" was already established..

THAT was why Mueller was hired..

No, exoneration means completely cleared of criminal wrong doing..

ex·on·er·ate
/i??zän??r?t/
verb
past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated
1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

Doesn't say ANYTHING about "suspicion"...

mueller found that suspicion was warranted,

It wasn't Mueller's job to find "suspicion".. It was his job to find FACTS to support the "suspicion"..

He found none...

but there was no evidence to corroborate. that's grounds for dismissal or acquittal on any criminal charges, but it's not exoneration.

And yet, according to the definition of exonerate, 'dismissal' and 'acquittal' *IS* 'exonerate'...

NO FACTS/EVIDENCE to corroborate = exoneration..

But, hay... I'm easy...

Will Balthy, Russ et al concede that there was NO EVIDENCE to support collusion??

No, they won't..

The FACTS don't matter. Only their Trump/America hate..

You mean, like the whiney biatch, Nadler and Shit-Fer-Brains??

Funny how you don't care about it when THEY do it..

It's all about the -D/-R after their names..

Democrats pooping in their pants!! :D

It's what YOU claim you want..

But you and I both know that A) you don't have anything TO impeach and 2) it will go bad for Dumbocrats if they try it.. :D

Well then, don't complain, don't bitch, don't call foul, because you asked for it!

Then quit talking about it and DO IT...

All talk...

That's the legacy you want? Impeachment? Right out of the box? You guys are nuts.

But then again, it is a way to shore up a deeply unpopular President.

Well then, don't complain, don't bitch, don't call foul, because you asked for it!

OK so you are saying ya'all are no different than "Republicants"..

OK, that's a concession.. Progress...

But impeachment was dead, as an idea, until Trump decided not to play ball. Can't do that. Can't give Congress the finger, and expect them to say, "okay".

Then impeach..

But you CAN'T because you KNOW you ain't got shit to impeach over..

And you KNOW that the American people would rally behind President Trump..

*THAT* is why ya'all won't impeach... :D

Of course they would've. So would Republicants, if the shoe were on the other foot.

But impeachment was dead, as an idea, until Trump decided not to play ball. Can't do that. Can't give Congress the finger, and expect them to say, "okay".

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's so cute that you think that..

You KNOW you Trump/America haters would be hysterical about the Mueller report no matter WHAT President Trump did about it..

Don't bother to deny it because we BOTH know it's factually accurate..

Say what you want. To Democrats, he's the gift that keeps on giving!

And he is going to keep giving that gift all the way thru to his landslide re-election.. :D

Police Officer William Buechner
Auburn Police Department, Alabama
End of Watch: Sunday, May 19, 2019

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

But I don't understand Trump.

If he'd have ignored the Mueller Report, not sent Barr out to spin it, admitted some obstruction ("I was frustrated"), and let it play out, it would have been over by the end of the summer.

Instead, he threw some blocks, and turned it into a train wreck.

Say what you want. To Democrats, he's the gift that keeps on giving!

Ya'all can't make the same claim re: the Mueller outcome..

And THAT is why you are a Birther-esque Collusioner...

Because you can't accept the facts and you can't accept reality...

And there was almost TWO YEARS and 35 million dollars spent on Mueller's probe.

What you state is a distinction, not a different..

And maybe we'll relent after WE get all that testimony. Who knows?

Yea?? That's what ya'all said before.. "We'll relent when we get the report.."

But ya didn't..

And ya won't relent if Mueller testifies and states what his report states..

“did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Do you HONESTLY expect Mueller to say ANYTHING different than what his report states??

Ya'all won't relent because ya'all don't WANT to hear that Trump did not collude with the Russians..

I didn't like nor agree with the Benghazi outcome.. But I accepted it..

Ya'all can't make the same claim re: the Mueller outcome..

There were 15 hearings and 11+ hours of testimony by Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.

Maybe the similarity is the complete astonishment by the observers on the other side at the outcome.

And maybe we'll relent after WE get all that testimony. Who knows?

But it's a long way, from here to there.

How exactly is my reasoning "corrupted"..

I am quoting from the report...

here tells me that if the Mueller report reached exactly the same conclusions after the same kind of investigation but of a Democratic presidential campaign and administration then you would be using the polar opposite and equally corrupted reasoning to condemn the president.

Not at all.. I wouldn't deny the FACTS as the report states..

Take the Benghazi investigation..

Hillary was completely exonerated of responsibility for the brutal murder of 4 Americans..

I didn't like that... I didn't agree with it..

But I did NOT deny that it existed.. I didn't go around saying, "Oh no!! She was NOT exonerated.. She was found totally and completely guilty!!!"

That's where we're different..

Ya'all are denying the FACT of President Trump's exoneration....

You don't agree, so you simply deny the fact...

THAT was impressive...

Your corrupted reasoning here tells me that if the Mueller report reached exactly the same conclusions after the same kind of investigation but of a Democratic presidential campaign and administration then you would be using the polar opposite and equally corrupted reasoning to condemn the president.

Mr. Mueller, who spent nearly two years investigating Moscow’s determined effort to sabotage the last presidential election, found no conspiracy “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” Mr. Barr wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

There it is in black and white from the NY GRIME of all places..

NO EVIDENCE OF A TRUMP-RUSSIA CONSPIRACY

Ya'all can crow about all the other "whataboutisms" til the cows come home. Have a ball if that's what helps ya'all get thru your day...

But what ya'all simply CANNOT do is factually claim that President Trump was NOT exonerated on Russia Collusion..

Because it's CLEAR to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together and without a political agenda that President Trump **IS** totally and completely exonerated on the issue of Russia Collusion..

To STILL think that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election is absolutely and unequivocally NO DIFFERENT than thinking Odumbo was born in Kenya and thinking that Dubya Bush and the Israeli MOSSAD engineered the 9/11 terror attacks..

All three are simply a complete and utter denial of the facts and of reality...

Hokay.. :D

See ya next time.. :D

Of course I read it.. I *ALWAYS* read your posts..

"What I meant about the Mueller report not being enough is that it does not find the president completely and totally exonerated with respect to collusion. And, yet, too many people would like us to think that it does."
-Liz

“did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
-Mueller Report

The second totally decimates your claim in the first..

Because it wasn't Mueller's JOB to revise policy just to please the Trump/America haters..

Mueller's job was to investigate and report.

THAT was the sole function of Mueller and his team..

NOT to please Trump/America haters...

Because, as painstakingly outlined in the second volume of the report dealing with obstruction, there were indictable offences.

That wasn't Mueller's determination to make..

INVESTIGATE

REPORT

Just because Mueller reported something ya'all didn't like or didn't agree with doesn't change the nature of the facts or the fact of what Mueller's job was..

Now I know that you didn't even read my post!

Which means that I am done conversing with you on this subject until you do.

And yet, she forcibly removed Joe's hands..

Of course there was nothing to see there..

Just as there was nothing to see when Trump tried to kiss Melania and was denied..

But for ya'all, THAT was something and THIS is nothing, even though the actions are the same..

A presidential spouse not wanting to engage in PDA...

What I meant about the Mueller report not being enough is that it does not find the president completely and totally exonerated with respect to collusion. And, yet, too many people would like us to think that it does.

And yet, it does...

Completely and unarguably it does exonerate President Trump for Collusion..

Because, if it didn't, Democrats would be SCREAMING to the high heavens over impeachment and the vast majority of Americans would be joining them..

Since that is not happening, ergo... Exoneration..

But if you would like to quote me the part of the report that says President Trump is guilty of collusion, we can put the debate to rest immediately..

Therefore, it is necessary for the special counsel to testify publicly before Congress and the American people in order to explain, in no uncertain terms, that Trump was not totally and completely exonerated of collusion

But he was.. This is fact...

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,"

THAT'S exoneration...

And, no amount of your spin, Michale, can change that.

And no amount of YOUR spin can change....

" “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”"

That's an EXACT quote from the Mueller report..

Your turn..

Quote from the report where it says that President Trump or his campaign colluded with Russians to win the election..

You can't because the report doesn't say that...

Nothing to see here. :)

VIDEO: Jill Biden forcibly removes Joe’s hands from her back
MAY 19, 2019
BY KYLE OLSON
Share
Tweet
Reddit
+1
Share
Jill Biden is a teacher and she’s going to teach her husband to keep his hands to himself.

After a few seconds, she forcibly removed his hands from her person, pulling his hands from her sides.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-jill-biden-forcibly-removes-joes-hands-from-her-back/

Surely ya'all will tease Biden for the same thing??

No, of course ya'all won't.. Because Biden has a -D after his name..

Because, as painstakingly outlined in the second volume of the report dealing with obstruction, there were indictable offences.

I wasn't trying to mislead you above. I meant to write Volume I, not Volume II.

My apologies and renewed request for a time-sensitive edit function. Ahem.

What I meant about the Mueller report not being enough is that it does not find the president completely and totally exonerated with respect to collusion. And, yet, too many people would like us to think that it does.

Therefore, it is necessary for the special counsel to testify publicly before Congress and the American people in order to explain, in no uncertain terms, that Trump was not totally and completely exonerated of collusion

Mueller clearly speaks to this in the executive summary to Volume II of his report where he details all of the contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, contacts that Trump and members of his campaign and administration lied about, endlessly.

For example, campaign chairman Manafort repeatedly met with someone who had ties to Russian intelligence to share polling data and a strategy to win Democratic votes in mid-western states. This is a definition of "collusion" and an action that probably came closest to being an act of coordination with the Russian government.

The Mueller report outlines numerous instances of collusion between the Trump campaign and individuals with close ties to the Russian government. Collusion, however, is NOT a crime.

It is just very bad behavior on the part of a US presidential campaign. And, no amount of your spin, Michale, can change that.

On the one hand, you get the comfortable and welcome delusion that everything is awesome for Democrats..

And, on the other hand, you get the FACTS and reality from me.. :D

The best of both worlds... :D

What it could mean is that the world’s climate wars — already raging for years — are likely to intensify. Left-leaning candidates elsewhere, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, may learn to avoid making climate a campaign issue, while here in Australia, conservatives face more enraged opponents and a more divided public.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/australia/election-climate-change.html

Once again.. Liberals touted and swore by the polls..

And then got bitch-slapped by them... :D

One assumes that a large number of Americans are fed up with constantly being told to “embrace” transgender and gender nonconforming people, to “empathize” with their collective struggle. This does not mean that the exasperated are transphobic. The vast majority wish no harm on people who are uncomfortable with their identities. They just happen to have more personal, more pressing issues that need addressing, like trying to pay their bills, keep their jobs, or send their children to a decent college.
https://spectator.org/the-death-of-the-democratic-party/

In addition to Durham’s appointment, we know that former attorney general Jeff Sessions tapped Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber more than a year ago to investigate aspects of the Russia-collusion hoax. The office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz is also conducting an internal review, focusing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance order.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/17/know-far-justice-departments-spygate-scandal-investigations/

Democrats are crapping their pants!!! :D

THREE investigations going on into Democrat corruption, malfeasance and criminal activities..

And, it's likely it will all come out before the 2020 election..

Any Dumbocrat candidate won't be worth a plug nickel!! :D

Too many GoT spoilers out there...

:D

It's going to be glorious!! :D

This is what terrifies Democrats.. :D

It's going to be glorious... :D

A future Alabama voter who will be ALIVE to vote...

Thanx to the Republican Party...

For the last few weeks I have been trying with increasing desperation to get a leftist — any leftist — to answer one simple question: what is a woman?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47257/walsh-simple-matt-walsh

For delusional Left Wing snowflakes, gender is not biology but a "state of mind"..

:eyeroll:

And, I predict, it will eventually cost him his party’s nomination.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/05/17/grandpa-joe-not-the-best-look-for-biden/

Don't know if I agree with the author...

But I can bet that there are millions and millions of Democrats, including most everyone here, who agree with the author...

But! But!! But!!

This isn't right!!

According to ya'all, President Trump hates black people!!

And here he is commuting the sentence of a black person..

I guess ya'all must be frak'ed in the head when ya'all claim President Trump hates black people..

:eyeroll:

Oh my gods!!!!

Buttagig is appearing on Fox News and is actually doing good!!!!

Buttagig is validating Fox News as a propaganda outlet!!!

BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How is a Dim President supposed to face down Putin or Iran Leadership if they are afraid to face Fox News???

Plans to fly from Rio Grande Valley to Detroit, Miami and Buffalo were preliminary, Harrison said. Authorities were researching available airports and the ability for nonprofit groups to provide temporary assistance.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/19/border-patrol-flies-migrants-california/

Drop them off at Nancy Pelosi's doorstep...

That indicates to me you're considering jumping the Russia Collusion Delusion ship...

n'est-ce pas??

Heh

The comment that is non-serious and jestful is the "most enlightened comment of the thread if not the entire blog"...

You're hard to figure out sometimes.. :D

Tempting.. :D

But if you leave, that's one less person to prove wrong and gloat over all the time..

That's not good.. :D

The article you've cited says that Mueller will probably eventually testify. If not, there's a subpoena ready for him, too.

Yea, cuz Congressional subpoenas have been SO effective to date.. :D hehehehehehehe

Yer right that Mueller may testify..

But I am right in predicting that, if Mueller does testify, ya'all won't find out any new information on Russia Collusion, Mueller will stand by his decision to totally and unequivocally exonerate President Trump and ya'all (sans JL) STILL won't accept that President Trump has been completely and totally exonerated on Russia Collusion..

If I am accurate in that prediction, we have to agree to SOME kind of fealty and acknowledgement from you... Any suggestions?? :D

How about this..

If my prediction is accurate, you take a Sherman on Russia Collusion...

I am kinda a pake man myself.. :D

Well, quite obviously, that wasn't enough. For some souls, I mean.

And that's my point. For the Trump/America hater, NOTHING will ever be enough...

Nothing short of the complete and utter decimation and destruction of President Trump, personally, professionally, famililly and totally..

It will NEVER be enough if it doesn't erase President Trump from the past, the present and the future..

Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump on the charge of Russia Collusion..

TOTALLY... COMPLETELY...

For any NORMAL or SANE or RATIONAL person, THAT would be "enough"...

Apparently, amongst Weigantians, there is only a single normal, sane or rational person..

You want to add to that total??? :D

Well, quite obviously, that wasn't enough. For some souls, I mean.

Most enlightened comment of the thread if not the entire blog; I, for one, am going to take your advice, many times over ...

cupcakes really are the worst of the worst, it's cake pretending to be pie!

JL

you're completely off-base discussing don's idea. of course anyone can make a small donation or a large donation, just like anyone can choose between pie and cake. the difference is that pie can be combined with votes to make both citizen empowerment and a tasty treat, while cake is baked-in as a tool of the establishment. many people like yourself criticize pie for what it is not, instead of having an intelligent discussion of what pie is, and what pie can potentially be with the media attention and voter support. on second thought, never mind don, eat some pie!

JL

You, CW, have available the biggest anti-corruption plan since the founding of our country that is based on the founding principle of our country that if the politicians don't do what we want then we don't vote for them any more- One Demand.

Someone thinks very highly of himself! Do you honestly believe that OneDemand is the “biggest anti-corruption plan since the founding of our country”??? I am not sure if this is more a statement of arrogance than it is ignorance, or vice versa, but it is delusional.

The maximum that an individual can give to a campaign is $2800. What makes $2800 corruption inducing, but $280 is corruption-proof? How does lowering the maximum donation amount prevent corruption?

Campaign donations are not the problem, it’s the unlimited money that PAC’s and SuperPAC’s can take in and spend in support of a candidate that is the problem! And One Demand doesn’t do squat about PAC’s.

And correct me if I am wrong, but don’t we already have the ability to vote out politicians that we no longer support?

It's time for the rest of country to be informed aboot this option and opportunity so they can have this option available should they choose it.

People already have the option to vote for only small donation candidates if they so choose. They have the ability to withhold their support/vote without anyone ever mentioning the words “One Demand.”

You have never been able to explain why candidates would need/want to sign up with you, as they can choose to only accept small donations without your help.

You have never put your theory into practice in your local communities, but again think that you are ready for the big leagues...if only CW would get off his lazy ass and give you the national spotlight that you deserve! Bless your heart!

wrong.

And you didn't answer the question: where is the absurd idea that Congress can't investigate what it wants in the Constitution?

What stakes do you want?

Anything. I'll leave the board if I'm wrong. The article you've cited says that Mueller will probably eventually testify. If not, there's a subpoena ready for him, too.

Why should President Trump submit to anything when ya'all have PROVEN ya'all won't accept the facts?

Because the President has to answer to the people. That's been a part of the law for over 200 years.

Rest up, cupcakes.. Yer gonna need it..

Bawk. Study up, snowflake. Maybe tomorrow won't go so badly for you.

Don't want to damage yer fragile psyches.. We know how sensitive fragile Left Wing snowflakes can be..

We'll pick up in the AM when I am SURE there will be more facts and reality I can slap the shit outta ya'all with.. :D

Rest up, cupcakes.. Yer gonna need it.. :D

Why should President Trump submit to anything when ya'all have PROVEN ya'all won't accept the facts??

No answer??

That's why ya'all LOSE....

Mueller won't testify..

Why???

Because he has already laid out the facts..

Morons and Party Slaves simply can't handle the facts....