Loudest applause line at CPAC: “Democrats are not Americans but the enemy”

[Virginiá]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

[T'Chenka]

Btw, no offense, but I gotta say Fuzzy, it occurs to me that it must require some pretty serious cognitive dissonance for one to be a Trump supporter and talk simultaneously stress the importance of maintenaning the rule of law.  Trump is defined in no small part by his cynical contempt for the very notion of the supremacy of the rule of law.  The man has literally been a blatant crook for his entire professional life and is currently an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy which also involved his personal lawyer, his company’s CFO, and one of his sons.  

Trump is going to be charged with and likely convicted of multiple felonies in less than five years (likely becoming the first former President to serve time in prison).  He has committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice and actively tried to undermine public trust in the FBI, his own Deputy AG, and numerous other public servants who put their country first when the rubber hit the road.  He fired his own Attorney General for following the law and recusing himself from an investigation in which he had a conflict instead of being “my [Trump’s] Roy Cohn.”  The rule of law and Trump go together about as well as anchovies and chocolate ice cream.

The Rule of Law involves the presumption of innocence and Due Process.

Much of what you cite here are political questions, which will be decided in an election, and (possibly) in an impeachment and removal process.  He has every right to fire the AG and fire the FBI Director, regardless of the reason.  That is not, and cannot be, Obstruction of Justice, because a President has every right to fire these folks for whatever reasons he chooses.  If the electorate and the Congress wish to impose political consequences on Trump for these actions, then let them happen.  The assertion that his firing the AG and the FBI Director is Obstruction of Justice criminalizes the normal functioning of the Presidency.  

I'm sure you know far more than I do about this topic, but well into the 1940s, the Courts were reluctant to decide "Political Questions".  The reason the Supreme Court has become a predominant issue in Presidential Elections these days is the withering away of the Court's resistance to entering the "Political Thicket".  To be fair, the conservative jurists have lost this reservation as much as the liberal jurists have.  The Rule of Law has meant that the Courts do not enter the Political Thicket, and it is not a good thing that this is less so.

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

[Badger]

Btw, no offense, but I gotta say Fuzzy, it occurs to me that it must require some pretty serious cognitive dissonance for one to be a Trump supporter and talk simultaneously stress the importance of maintenaning the rule of law.  Trump is defined in no small part by his cynical contempt for the very notion of the supremacy of the rule of law.  The man has literally been a blatant crook for his entire professional life and is currently an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy which also involved his personal lawyer, his company’s CFO, and one of his sons.  

Trump is going to be charged with and likely convicted of multiple felonies in less than five years (likely becoming the first former President to serve time in prison).  He has committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice and actively tried to undermine public trust in the FBI, his own Deputy AG, and numerous other public servants who put their country first when the rubber hit the road.  He fired his own Attorney General for following the law and recusing himself from an investigation in which he had a conflict instead of being “my [Trump’s] Roy Cohn.”  The rule of law and Trump go together about as well as anchovies and chocolate ice cream.

The Rule of Law involves the presumption of innocence and Due Process.

Much of what you cite here are political questions, which will be decided in an election, and (possibly) in an impeachment and removal process.  He has every right to fire the AG and fire the FBI Director, regardless of the reason.  That is not, and cannot be, Obstruction of Justice, because a President has every right to fire these folks for whatever reasons he chooses.  If the electorate and the Congress wish to impose political consequences on Trump for these actions, then let them happen.  The assertion that his firing the AG and the FBI Director is Obstruction of Justice criminalizes the normal functioning of the Presidency.  

I'm sure you know far more than I do about this topic, but well into the 1940s, the Courts were reluctant to decide "Political Questions".  The reason the Supreme Court has become a predominant issue in Presidential Elections these days is the withering away of the Court's resistance to entering the "Political Thicket".  To be fair, the conservative jurists have lost this reservation as much as the liberal jurists have.  The Rule of Law has meant that the Courts do not enter the Political Thicket, and it is not a good thing that this is less so.

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

Yes. Although I do believe fuzzy has his reasonable moments, it should be equally clear that his middle names are cognitive dissonance.

[junior chįmp]

Btw, no offense, but I gotta say Fuzzy, it occurs to me that it must require some pretty serious cognitive dissonance for one to be a Trump supporter and talk simultaneously stress the importance of maintenaning the rule of law.  Trump is defined in no small part by his cynical contempt for the very notion of the supremacy of the rule of law.  The man has literally been a blatant crook for his entire professional life and is currently an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy which also involved his personal lawyer, his company’s CFO, and one of his sons.  

Trump is going to be charged with and likely convicted of multiple felonies in less than five years (likely becoming the first former President to serve time in prison).  He has committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice and actively tried to undermine public trust in the FBI, his own Deputy AG, and numerous other public servants who put their country first when the rubber hit the road.  He fired his own Attorney General for following the law and recusing himself from an investigation in which he had a conflict instead of being “my [Trump’s] Roy Cohn.”  The rule of law and Trump go together about as well as anchovies and chocolate ice cream.

The Rule of Law involves the presumption of innocence and Due Process.

Much of what you cite here are political questions, which will be decided in an election, and (possibly) in an impeachment and removal process.  He has every right to fire the AG and fire the FBI Director, regardless of the reason.  That is not, and cannot be, Obstruction of Justice, because a President has every right to fire these folks for whatever reasons he chooses.  If the electorate and the Congress wish to impose political consequences on Trump for these actions, then let them happen.  The assertion that his firing the AG and the FBI Director is Obstruction of Justice criminalizes the normal functioning of the Presidency.  

I'm sure you know far more than I do about this topic, but well into the 1940s, the Courts were reluctant to decide "Political Questions".  The reason the Supreme Court has become a predominant issue in Presidential Elections these days is the withering away of the Court's resistance to entering the "Political Thicket".  To be fair, the conservative jurists have lost this reservation as much as the liberal jurists have.  The Rule of Law has meant that the Courts do not enter the Political Thicket, and it is not a good thing that this is less so.

Imagine yakking on and on about the Rule of Law™ and then voting for a criminal like Trump....its almost laughable. Its like being against crack and voting for Marion Barry.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

BTW, I'm watching the Trump speech right now for the first time. This is without a doubt the most triumphant speech he's ever given. Hail Caesar!

[Badger]

BTW, I'm watching the Trump speech right now for the first time. This is without a doubt the most triumphant speech he's ever given. Hail Caesar!

You're trying too hard.

[Progressive Pessimist]

BTW, I'm watching the Trump speech right now for the first time. This is without a doubt the most triumphant speech he's ever given. Hail Caesar!

It was a fairly typical Trump speech.

[T'Chenka]

Btw, no offense, but I gotta say Fuzzy, it occurs to me that it must require some pretty serious cognitive dissonance for one to be a Trump supporter and talk simultaneously stress the importance of maintenaning the rule of law.  Trump is defined in no small part by his cynical contempt for the very notion of the supremacy of the rule of law.  The man has literally been a blatant crook for his entire professional life and is currently an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy which also involved his personal lawyer, his company’s CFO, and one of his sons.  

Trump is going to be charged with and likely convicted of multiple felonies in less than five years (likely becoming the first former President to serve time in prison).  He has committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice and actively tried to undermine public trust in the FBI, his own Deputy AG, and numerous other public servants who put their country first when the rubber hit the road.  He fired his own Attorney General for following the law and recusing himself from an investigation in which he had a conflict instead of being “my [Trump’s] Roy Cohn.”  The rule of law and Trump go together about as well as anchovies and chocolate ice cream.

The Rule of Law involves the presumption of innocence and Due Process.

Much of what you cite here are political questions, which will be decided in an election, and (possibly) in an impeachment and removal process.  He has every right to fire the AG and fire the FBI Director, regardless of the reason.  That is not, and cannot be, Obstruction of Justice, because a President has every right to fire these folks for whatever reasons he chooses.  If the electorate and the Congress wish to impose political consequences on Trump for these actions, then let them happen.  The assertion that his firing the AG and the FBI Director is Obstruction of Justice criminalizes the normal functioning of the Presidency.  

I'm sure you know far more than I do about this topic, but well into the 1940s, the Courts were reluctant to decide "Political Questions".  The reason the Supreme Court has become a predominant issue in Presidential Elections these days is the withering away of the Court's resistance to entering the "Political Thicket".  To be fair, the conservative jurists have lost this reservation as much as the liberal jurists have.  The Rule of Law has meant that the Courts do not enter the Political Thicket, and it is not a good thing that this is less so.

Imagine yakking on and on about the Rule of Law™ and then voting for a criminal like Trump....its almost laughable. Its like being against crack and voting for Marion Barry.

This is why I want to rip my hair out when I watch CNN or MSNBC. They will say plainly that Trump is a joke not to be taken seriously, but not his voters or the Republican Party as a whole. Bad business I guess. They make these clowns seem respectable to average Joes who don't pay attention.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

BTW, I'm watching the Trump speech right now for the first time. This is without a doubt the most triumphant speech he's ever given. Hail Caesar!

You're trying too hard.

Oh, I don't know. There are some parallels. Caesar was a PR-obsessed, financially troubled aristocrat who, along with his shady associates, destroyed the Roman Republic for personal power and to avoid being held accountable for his crimes.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but ouch, almost accidentally cut myself looking at all the edge going on here.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Van Jones thinks Democrats should talk with these deranged idiots...

[Yellowhammer]

Many Democrats don't try to hide the fact that they're the enemy; they're quite open about it. Dancing around the truth does nobody any good: call them out for what they are.
That being said, the Republican Party is also the enemy, though perhaps not to the same extreme extent.

[Badger]

Many Democrats don't try to hide the fact that they're the enemy; they're quite open about it. Dancing around the truth does nobody any good: call them out for what they are.
That being said, the Republican Party is also the enemy, though perhaps not to the same extreme extent.

Cool story, bro! Careful not to cut yourself on that edge.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Many Democrats don't try to hide the fact that they're the enemy; they're quite open about it. Dancing around the truth does nobody any good: call them out for what they are.
That being said, the Republican Party is also the enemy, though perhaps not to the same extreme extent.

What is your opinion of Trump

[TarHeelDem]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

[MATTROSE94]

Naso certainly does a lot of complaining about the United States for someone who purports to love them unconditionally. In fact, I'm not sure that I could name any poster who is more negative about this country. He doesn't like most of the people here, how they live, or what they believe. Why doesn't he leave?

I agree. Naso would fit in very well in Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Russia.

[gerritcole]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

is it criminal to sell weapons to cartels which then cost american lives? or to deny a us ambassador support against a hostile enemy?

the edge is too real

[Fuzzy Bear]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

The President of the United States can fire the FBI Director at any time, and for any reason.

[T'Chenka]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

The President of the United States can fire the FBI Director at any time, and for any reason.

Yes. And those involved in impeaching him or invoking the 25th amendment can point to it as Exhibit A for why they are doing so, if it is for a reason defined by those with decision-making power as "inappropriate" or "not upholding the president's obligations he swore to uphold at his inaugeration". There would probably need to be Exhibit B, C, D etc as well, but firing the FBI Director for inappropriate reasons CAN certainly be a big component of the president's downfall. Which is a good thing. Checks and balances are a good thing, MAGA crowd, if you're listening.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

The President of the United States can fire the FBI Director at any time, and for any reason.

Ok Alan Dershowitz. “Obstruction of Justice” is defined as “obstructing a prosecutor or government official in preventing the course of justice”. Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation the president himself is implicated in fits this definition to a t

[Fuzzy Bear]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

The President of the United States can fire the FBI Director at any time, and for any reason.

Ok Alan Dershowitz. “Obstruction of Justice” is defined as “obstructing a prosecutor or government official in preventing the course of justice”. Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation the president himself is implicated in fits this definition to a t

No, it does not.  It cannot be "obstruction of justice" if it involves an action that a President is legally entitled to take.

This doesn't mean it's OK, but the OK-ness of the issue is a political question, and impeachment/removal is, indeed, a political process.  Nixon was fully entitled to fire Archibald Cox, and to fire those who refused to fire him.  That didn't make it the right thing to do, but our system does entitle people to do the legal thing that is not always the best thing.