I've read the summary pages. Have you?
As I said, it's pure speculation about whether the agency is in fact the CIA, if so how was he recruited to the CIA (patriotic volunteer vs. flipped because he was committing a crime), and the duration for which he was working for a government agency. You stated earlier flat out he had no real Russia ties and was essentially CIA agent from 2000-2013 which is full of assumptions/speculation and a ridiculous mischaracterization.
I don't give two figs about Carter Page other than his pertinence to the fact that multiple Trump associates have multiple Russian intertwinings (and numerous ones out of this group are in jail), and therefore the IG found that the origins of the Russia investigation had probable cause and were unbiased.
College acceptance which was granted based on something other than merit, talent, skill.
How do you know they suffered more, quite a presumption to make...
Please - Princeton undergrad and HLS speaks for itself, and by itself, would more than qualify for such a position—and in fact, some would argue she was over-qualified.
Will given that she graduated cum laude from Princeton one can safely surmise her undergrad GPA was between 3.7 and 3.8. Further, if you were to look through top-law-schools.com, you would find that even if we take the lowest 25 percent of accepted admissions at HLS, one would still have a LSAT of 168 or about the 96th percentile.
Further, she graduated number two in her very well regarded magnet high school in Chicago and worked initItaly out of HLS at the rather conservative Sidley Austin and I can assure that they would have never hired her unless she was at least in the top half of her class.
You should be highlighting how Jared got into undergrad and law school- hint the school now has his family name on its respective building.
www.nbcnews.com
House Judiciary Committee publishes full impeachment report
In making its case that President Donald Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, the committee concludes, "President Trump has realized the Framers' worst nightmare."
The second link is depressing: most *****s don't change their minds even when presented with facts; they just let the politicians and the media (especially Faux News) brainwash them into whatever they want.
While the Ukraine call can be debated, I don't think the president has one leg to stand on regarding the second article of impeachment: Obstruction of Congress.
"President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.
(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael ‘‘Mick’’ Mulvaney, Robert B.Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T.
Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.
These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States election."
This is what Nixon was impeached for. Reciprocal checks and balances are what this country is built upon, because otherwise nobody watches the watchers and we get a dictatorship. I haven't seen this level of political corruption since I left my native country; those who support it have no excuse for spitting on the Constitution whenever it's convenient.
1. I am not at all happy about Obama's (or anybody else's) executive orders either, especially acts of war without approval from Congress.
Not trying to be difficult, but Nixon was not impeached. He was going to be impeached, but resigned before the House could formally impeach him. They had the votes to do so.Just trying to be accurate. He didnt want to put the country through this divisive process. Note the last 2 guys Clinton and Trump, didnt seem to consider this point. To avoid this, impeachment should be bi partisan and actual crimes committed, IMO, Dems should have gone to the courts for obtaining documents and witnesses. Then the Obstruction charge would stick better in voters eyes. I think Censure would have been a better option with the evidence in hand. I understand Impeachment is a political process, but this rush to impeach prior to the election, not going through the courts, and no real crime of collusion or obstruction proven yet, really appears to be just that. This is why 50% of voters in most polls dont approve. All prior Impeachments had evidence of a crime and in Clinton's case, the vote wasnt overwhelming for impeachment if my memory is accurate. This whole impeachment process will spillover into President Trump's 2nd term and we will be treated to several new impeachment hearings if the House remains in Democrat control. I believe a dangerous precedent has been set and we will see this in future elections when the Party of the President isnt the same as the party controlling the House. Our Framers warned of this. Judt my opinion.House Judiciary Committee publishes full impeachment report
In making its case that President Donald Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, the committee concludes, "President Trump has realized the Framers' worst nightmare."
The second link is depressing: most *****s don't change their minds even when presented with facts; they just let the politicians and the media (especially Faux News) brainwash them into whatever they want.
While the Ukraine call can be debated, I don't think the president has one leg to stand on regarding the second article of impeachment: Obstruction of Congress.
"President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.
(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael ‘‘Mick’’ Mulvaney, Robert B.Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T.
Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.
These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States election."
This is what Nixon was impeached for. Reciprocal checks and balances are what this country is built upon, because otherwise nobody watches the watchers and we get a dictatorship. I haven't seen this level of political corruption since I left my native country; those who support it have no excuse for spitting on the Constitution whenever it's convenient.
There is a crime. It's obstruction of Congress (and of justice) all the time (the Ukraine call is just the frosting on the cake). Congress has the right to investigate a president for a possible criminal behavior. There is no executive privilege for that (see above). The way he's been trying to influence witnesses is unheard of in any democracy. He's a disgrace to the Constitution and the country. I am sorry you can't see it. I have no doubts.
As I said, these are political games for the hoi polloi. Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on, once the house has started impeachment proceedings.
Yes, the Senate should, if they had a spine (and loved the Constitution more than their own well-being). But we all know that they won't. That's why there is no reason to waste more time on this political charade.
I admit I'm baffled by Bloomberg running. The only thing the various factions of the Democrat party seem to have in common right now is contempt for billionaires. Hard to see how Bloomberg gets any traction with them. Some candidates run for president because even a failed bid furthers their local goals. For example Harris, who surely knew all along she didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, nevertheless benefited from a bunch of fundraising and time on the stage. Her failed presidential campaign will pay dividends for her in California for a long time to come. But what does Bloomberg stand to gain from losing? I don't get it.
I don't agree with these either. But I totally agree that they can subpoena people when things smell fishy in the White House (acts of the president while being president). The federal government has become too powerful and needs a strong counterbalance, otherwise we'll end up with more corruption.
Rs are just not taking the house, they are losing additional seats next year....
I don't see him earning a lot of non-Democrat votes. There might be a million people who could beat Trump in the general election, but there aren't a million people who can get through the Democratic primary. I just don't see how he even gets a shot at Trump.
Bloomberg is in the race to serve 2 purposes: 1) Cash cow-He will spend $$$ on anti-Trump ads, which will help any Dem, and 2) To manipulate the press-His Bloomberg news will not report negatively on him or any other Dem, but they will trash talk Trump. I predict that their "anonymous sources" will be quoted by all fake news outlets.
Such BS: your assertion is based on innuendo, speculation and not a single submission of a substantive fact, not a single one. He founded and leads a publicly traded company, one that transformed the financial services industry, much in the way Apple transformed personal computing or Tesla to the automotive sector—and as such, his return is quite profound. Further, he comes under the daily scrutiny of the SEC as well as shareholders and a board—unlike Trump who could never succeed on such a large and innovative scale that employs tens of thousands. Yet, your pithy exercise to attack with baseless innuendo and not a man who has five gigantic bankruptcies, four kids from three wives and is a known *****-monger.
(Hold on. Let me catch my breath.) So...why is Biden running?
That's not any different than any other PAC money spent on ads. If all he wanted to do was funnel money into anti-Trump ads, he wouldn't need to be a candidate to do it.
You might want to add both veracity and perspective to your rather random assertions. So, you would take on a man who basically made tuition a non-issue at John Hopkins, all the way from undergraduate degrees to medical degrees with the largest donation in higher education history, at close to 2 billion dollars. Conversely, Trump, was actually considered to be under a investigation for a faux charity, in which he basically donated and/endowed nothing, took outside contributions and then used it pay his own bills.....please, you embarrass yourself.If a man says "Yeah, I'm not campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire. I don't have time for that," it is logical to think that he's not really that into becoming President. Therefore, he is in the race for other purposes. Then when he announces his ad budget and manipulation of the media, it all comes into focus just a little bit better.
The part about Bloomberg's candidacy shielding him from possible criminal investigation is my speculation, but he'd only be following in Biden's footsteps. I mean, does anyone really think that hairy-legged, Corn Pop nemesis, senile, creepy, quid pro Joe, has a chance in hell of beating Trump?
That's not any different than any other PAC money spent on ads. If all he wanted to do was funnel money into anti-Trump ads, he wouldn't need to be a candidate to do it.
And if you want to ascribe nefarious motives to him, wouldn't he be better off supporting candidates who might later be in a position to return the favor, rather than crapping all over their campaigns as he runs himself?
Who can and can't contribute - FEC.gov
As a candidate he has no limit to his spending.
"Speculation"? It's straight up ridiculous, is what it is. A person who feared investigation for wrongdoing wouldn't set himself up to be the most scrutinized person on the planet.
How do you explain HRC in 2016 and now Biden for 2020 exposing themselves to scutinity? They are as dirty as dirty gets. I guess when you've been above the law for so long, you forget how to be fearful? Normal behavior does not apply to these people. That would require them to have things like morality and conscience.
I detest Bloomberg for a bunch of reasons but this is an absurd line of thought.
Do you actually think these things? I believe everything, and nothing, all at the same time.
I'm not being argumentative, just seeking clarification. I believe there is a remedy for this and its via the courts, am I correct? If I am, I think rushing to seek that remedy prior to voting for full impeachment would garner more public support and allow for more
Your observation is correct- but then it becomes an issue of timing—as it would have to wind itself through the appellate courts.
