The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[Aexodus]

some truly horrifying and regressive policies

Like what.

[Gaidin]

Why wouldn’t the proper committees see it?

Barr could've already gotten the court to clear the report's grand jury material for the proper committees if he wanted to. Instead he's making vague statements about hilarious versions of redaction based on which committee sees what forcing the committees to vote to subpoena the full report.

[The spartan]

Like what.

Like re-isolating our economy (practically the definition of "regressive" in our globalizing world) or wanting to deport millions of people from our country without any thought to what they would actually look like or entail. That sounds pretty horrifying.

You have a bigger point here, or are you just trying to snipe?

[Infidel144]

By literally just appointing a new SCOTUS judge. It would obviously been challenged and be a total legal show, but Obama had the strong argument of "the Senate are refusing to do their jobs" and probably could have won the legal battle. But he decided to "go high" and lost the Democrats a SCOTUS seat.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Article 2 Section 2

Ah you are advocating that Obama 'I won', 'elections have consequences', 'Republicans gotta sit in the back', 'punish our enemies' should have broken the law.
Too bad for your little wanna be dictatorial wet dream, that elections did have "consequences", Republicans "won" and Obama's "enemies" got to "punish" him.

[The spartan]

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Article 2 Section 2

Ah you are advocating that Obama 'I won', 'elections have consequences', 'Republicans gotta sit in the back', 'punish our enemies' should have broken the law.
Too bad for your little wanna be dictatorial wet dream, that elections did have "consequences", Republicans "won" and Obama's "enemies" got to "punish" him.

Did you not read anything on the specific issue, or are you just lying through your teeth? Try clicking the link so you don't look like such a fool.

Also, you apparently didn't know that there are no elections for SCOTUS judges, or something.

[tgoodenow]

wanting to deport millions of people from our country without any thought to what they would actually look like or entail.

It looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

[Coughdrop addict]

Like re-isolating our economy (practically the definition of "regressive" in our globalizing world) or wanting to deport millions of people from our country without any thought to what they would actually look like or entail. That sounds pretty horrifying.

I'd add their plan to strip health insurance from tens of millions because they don't like the guy who proposed it as another good reason to vote against Republicans. I sometimes half-jokingly wonder if they would throw out their guns if the 2nd Amendment was renamed to The Obama Amendment.

Another Republican policy that really shows just how unsuitable they are for leadership is their habit of constantly churning out new conspiracy theories. From birtherism to climate change denial to the Clinton body count to the coup (IE attempting to hold the President accountable to the law is treason), the Republican base has been fed a diet of sustained madness for years that has left them out of touch with reality. When Clinton running an international child trafficking ring out of a pizza place is seen by many Republican voters as plausible, and not immediately denounced as lunacy by Republican politicians, that tells me these kind of people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.

It looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

One of our national shames alongside Native American Genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, and Japaneses Internment. Things we must never allow to happen again no matter how much they would please some people.

[Infidel144]

Did you not read anything on the specific issue, or are you just lying through your teeth? Try clicking the link so you don't look like such a fool.

Let's see, I quoted the Constitution, which says the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" Supreme Court Justices. But Obama did not get the advice and consent of the Senate. So in your dictatorial fantasy, you say Obama could just ignore the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) and simply appoint a justice with out the advice and consent of the Senate, thus breaking the law.

Hmmm... I have some recollection of your wanna be dictator attempting a similar end run around the law, and declaring that he considered the Senate in recess, when the House kept Congress open with pro forma sessions, and making appointments with out the advice and consent of the Senate. I also recall the Supreme Court slapping that down as unconstitutional.

Try clicking the link so you don't look like such a fool.

Calling me a fool... I will find this interesting...

Also, you apparently didn't know that there are no elections for SCOTUS judges, or something.

Strange, I don't recall saying anything about SCOTUS judges being elected. I did borrow something about elections having consequences and Americans whom Obama declared his enemies that needed to be punished (Republicans) winning elections and Obama getting punished instead.

[The spartan]

Let's see, I quoted the Constitution, which says the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" Supreme Court Justices. But Obama did not get the advice and consent of the Senate. So in your dictatorial fantasy, you say Obama could just ignore the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) and simply appoint a justice with out the advice and consent of the Senate, thus breaking the law.

And you are, what, some kind of Constitutional scholar? I don't give two about your interpretation of the law, I will listen to the experts, thanks.

Hmmm... I have some recollection of your wanna be dictator attempting a similar end run around the law, and declaring that he considered the Senate in recess, when the House kept Congress open with pro forma sessions, and making appointments with out the advice and consent of the Senate. I also recall the Supreme Court slapping that down as unconstitutional.

Ok, so you are just being glib for the sake of trolling. Got it.

Calling me a fool... I will find this interesting...

No, actually, I recommended reading up on expert opinion on the matter so you don't look like one.

Strange, I don't recall saying anything about SCOTUS judges being elected. I did borrow something about elections having consequences and Americans whom Obama declared his enemies that needed to be punished (Republicans) winning elections and Obama getting punished instead.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Too bad for your little wanna be dictatorial wet dream, that elections did have "consequences", Republicans "won" and Obama's "enemies" got to "punish" him.

You sure seem to be implying that elections should have decided who got to fill Scalia's vacancy on the SCOTUS, which is never how SCOTUS appointments worked. Never in the history of the US have we delayed a supreme court justice by saying "we will let the next election decide" until Mitch McConnell, who may as well wiped his ass with the Constitution that you seem to hold up so highly when he did so. But by all means, keep throwing around buzzwords and your own amateur opinions on something you an issue you know little about.

[Infidel144]

And you are, what, some kind of Constitutional scholar? I don't give two about your interpretation of the law, I will listen to the experts, thanks.

Hmmm... The Constitution says: " the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" Supreme Court Justices.
Providing the words of the Constitution, and the fact that Obama did not get the "Advice and Consent of the Senate", is an 'interpretation'. But the keen legal mind of The spartan, in his little dictatorial wet dream, just knows that Obama could have just appointed his nominee and ignored the Constitution.

Ok, so you are just being glib for the sake of trolling. Got it.

I'm not sure how pointing out that Obama had attempted to do an end run around the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution, much like you would have had him do, and was slapped down by the Supreme Court for it, is particularly glib or trolling.

No, actually, I recommended reading up on expert opinion on the matter so you don't look like one.

I will continue to observe this with some interest.

You sure seem to be implying that elections should have decided who got to fill Scalia's vacancy on the SCOTUS, which is never how SCOTUS appointments worked. Never in the history of the US have we delayed a supreme court justice by saying "we will let the next election decide" until Mitch McConnell, who may as well wiped his ass with the Constitution that you seem to hold up so highly when he did so. But by all means, keep throwing around buzzwords and your own amateur opinions on something you an issue you know little about.

Odd, there is nothing in there that has me saying about "SCOTUS judges being elected", but rather Republicans won the elections, while you claimed I apparently "didn't know that there are no elections for SCOTUS judges". Obama won an election, and got to decide who to nominate to the Supreme Court. Republicans won an election and got to decide who to consent to being appointed to the Supreme Court.

A cooling quench to a hot brain, sick fit, and give him yet another.

[The spartan]

Hmmm... The Constitution says: " the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" Supreme Court Justices.
Providing the words of the Constitution, and the fact that Obama did not get the "Advice and Consent of the Senate", is an 'interpretation'. But the keen legal mind of The spartan, in his little dictatorial wet dream, just knows that Obama could have just appointed his nominee and ignored the Constitution.

It's not my opinion, smart guy. See, what you still haven't done is read anything on the event, which would get you to the opinion of legal scholars. Here, let me spoon-feed you some:

On February 24, 2016, a group of U.S. constitutional-law scholars sent an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Senate urging the president to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy and the Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominee.[29] The letter, which was organized by the progressive American Constitution Society, stated that it would be "unprecedented" for the Senate to fail to consider a Supreme Court nominee, and "would leave a vacancy that would undermine the ability of the Supreme Court to carry out its constitutional duties."[29] The signatories wrote: "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees."[29][30] Among the 33 professors signing the letter were Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine School of Law; Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law; Kermit Roosevelt III of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, and Gene Nichol of the University of North Carolina School of Law.[30]

Obama could have lost the case, but we can see now that there was no real reason to not try. You are a good example why; you are both trying to appeal to the Constitution and supporting what McConnell did in the same breath. Ergo, you obviously don't give a about the Constitution, as all these legal scholars pointed. If Obama lost the court case, he wouldn't get his SCOTUS appointment he didn't get anyways, if he won, the Dems would have another seat on the SCOTUS. Of course he should have tried, the Republicans already instigated the event.

I'm not sure how pointing out that Obama had attempted to do an end run around the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution, much like you would have had him do, and was slapped down by the Supreme Court for it, is particularly glib or trolling.

No, saying dumb like "little dictatorial wet dream" is glib and trolling. Your intent is loud and clear. Especially since I am pretty sure you support Trump's more authoritarian and unilateral moves.

I will continue to observe this with some interest.

Odd, there is nothing in there that has me saying about "SCOTUS judges being elected", but rather Republicans won the elections, while you claimed I apparently "didn't know that there are no elections for SCOTUS judges". Obama won an election, and got to decide who to nominate to the Supreme Court. Republicans won an election and got to decide who to consent to being appointed to the Supreme Court.

A cooling quench to a hot brain, sick fit, and give him yet another.

Wait wait, were you saying that it was right and constitutional to hold a SCOTUS seat open until after an election, or not?

[Infidel144]

It's not my opinion, smart guy. See, what you still haven't done is read anything on the event, which would get you to the opinion of legal scholars. Here, let me spoon-feed you some:

You don't know anything about what I have read on the event. Which is not relevant since it is you advocating for Obama to break the law. Your opinion being that Obama could and probably should have just appointed Garland without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Obama could have lost the case, but we can see now that there was no real reason to not try.

No good reason for Obama not to break the law....

You are a good example why; you are both trying to appeal to the Constitution and supporting what McConnell did in the same breath.

I don't recall saying that I supported what McConnell did. I don't recall mentioning McConnell at all. It's almost as though you are arguing in bad faith....

Ergo, you obviously don't give a about the Constitution, as all these legal scholars pointed.

Did these legal scholars mention me by name?
You, of course, are the one advocating for Obama to have ignored the Constitution, while claiming I don't give a wub about it.

If Obama lost the court case, he wouldn't get his SCOTUS appointment he didn't get anyways, if he won, the Dems would have another seat on the SCOTUS. Of course he should have tried, the Republicans already instigated the event.

Yes, yes, it is very clear that you are in favour of Presidents... er, I mean Presidents that conform to your dictatorial fantasy... just ignoring the Constitution.

No, saying dumb like "little dictatorial wet dream" is glib and trolling. Your intent is loud and clear. Especially since I am pretty sure you support Trump's more authoritarian and unilateral moves.

Are you? Saying that you are "pretty sure" indicates you don't have anything to back that up. So, at this point, you are just making wub up to avoid the fact that you are advocating for Obama to have broken the law by appointing a Justice without, as the Constitution says, the "Advice and Consent of the Senate"

Wait wait, were you saying that it was right and constitutional to hold a SCOTUS seat open until after an election, or not?

Well I'm fairly certain that in your fevered fantasy that is the case (you have told me my positions several times now). But I don't recall saying any such thing one way or the other, I'm not sure why I would, since it has no relevance to your claim that Obama could and should have broken the law.
What I have done is quoted the Constitution, which says various appointments, including those to the Supreme Court are done with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and noted that Obama had made an earlier attempt to do an end run around that requirement, and got slapped by the Supreme Court for it.

[The spartan]

You don't know anything about what I have read on the event. Which is not relevant since it is you advocating for Obama to break the law. Your opinion being that Obama could and probably should have just appointed Garland without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Seeing as how you are trying to explain your interpretation of the literal text of the Constitution rather than referencing legal scholars, yeah, I don't think you have read much of it.

No good reason for Obama not to break the law....

Ok, I don't think I quite get what you mean by "break the law". It would be breaking the law in the same way Trump broke the law when implementing the "Muslim ban"; it is something that the president may or may not be able to do until reviewed by the proper courts. If Obama appointed a new justice, it would be challenged and hashed out in court. It isn't like robbing a bank or anything.

I don't recall saying that I supported what McConnell did. I don't recall mentioning McConnell at all. It's almost as though you are arguing in bad faith....

Oh, so you disapprove of that move and think McConnell should have just let Obama have his SCOTUS seat? I somehow doubt that, speaking of bad faith...

Did these legal scholars mention me by name?
You, of course, are the one advocating for Obama to have ignored the Constitution, while claiming I don't give a wub about it.

They mentioned that what the Republican senate was doing was very contrary to the Constitution, so if you are non-partisanly holding up the Constitution, you should have a lot to criticize about that.

Yes, yes, it is very clear that you are in favour of Presidents... er, I mean Presidents that conform to your dictatorial fantasy... just ignoring the Constitution.

No idea what you are even talking about here. My point was that Obama should have played as dirty as he could while he had the chance. His "going high" strategy failed.

Are you? Saying that you are "pretty sure" indicates you don't have anything to back that up. So, at this point, you are just making wub up to avoid the fact that you are advocating for Obama to have broken the law by appointing a Justice without, as the Constitution says, the "Advice and Consent of the Senate"

Again, I don't think you get what "breaking the law" means in this case if you are freaking out about this but not all the times Trump "broke the law" with his executive orders. It's not as if Obama could have appointed a justice by gunpoint, it would be in court.

Well I'm fairly certain that in your fevered fantasy that is the case (you have told me my positions several times now). But I don't recall saying any such thing one way or the other, I'm not sure why I would, since it has no relevance to your claim that Obama could and should have broken the law.
What I have done is quoted the Constitution, which says various appointments, including those to the Supreme Court are done with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and noted that Obama had made an earlier attempt to do an end run around that requirement, and got slapped by the Supreme Court for it.

You have unironically accused me of supporting a dictatorship and then play the strawman victim? Give me a ing break. So you have no opinion on what McConnell did despite just waiving the Constitution in my face? Do you honestly think you are coming off as non-partisan or something by "playing" this way?

[Heathen Hammer]

Another Republican policy that really shows just how unsuitable they are for leadership is their habit of constantly churning out new conspiracy theories. From birtherism to climate change denial to the Clinton body count to the coup (IE attempting to hold the President accountable to the law is treason), the Republican base has been fed a diet of sustained madness for years that has left them out of touch with reality. When Clinton running an international child trafficking ring out of a pizza place is seen by many Republican voters as plausible, and not immediately denounced as lunacy by Republican politicians, that tells me these kind of people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.

I don't think you understand that "conspiracy theory" is just a buzzword used against narratives your side doesn't like. It is safe to say that when you have a large number of high-profile Democrats turning out to be rapists and pedos theories like pizzagate don't seem that "lunatic", or that people who crossed Clintons end up dead in rather suspicious circumstances. The reason why people think the worst of the Democrats is because of... Democrats.

One of our national shames alongside Native American Genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, and Japaneses Internment. Things we must never allow to happen again no matter how much they would please some people.

Dude, the president you are defending literally provided air support to factions that would enslave black people in Libya and tried to help similar factions win in Syria.

[B. W.]

It's been a long tome coming, so we'll have to see where this goes. Now that the Mueller investigation is over, it looks like the worm is finally turning. Nunes has issued a call for prosecution of FISA warrant abusers:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...secution_.html

I wonder if Sally Yates is in the mix. She was the Obama holdover who illegally spied on Flynn.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/08...michael-flynn/

[PointOfViewGun]

Interesting how Trump and some Republicans are trying their best not to have others take a look at the Mueller investigation report. What are they hiding?

[B. W.]

Interesting how Trump and some Republicans are trying their best not to have others take a look at the Mueller investigation report. What are they hiding?

It's entirely possible that the report contains information about misdeeds by federal officials that may be facing prosecution. If that's the case then the report will remain under wraps until that prosecution takes place. See my above post.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's entirely possible that the report contains information about misdeeds by federal officials that may be facing prosecution. If that's the case then the report will remain under wraps until that prosecution takes place. See my above post.

You just cooked up that reasoning on the spot. That's not really what Trump argued. Heck, Republicans even try to block non-binding resolutions for its release.

[The spartan]

It's entirely possible that the report contains information about misdeeds by federal officials that may be facing prosecution. If that's the case then the report will remain under wraps until that prosecution takes place. See my above post.

That's why Jesus invented something called "Redacting".

[NorseThing]

Despite the wind and fury of the members of Congress, the report will be released. It may only be a select portion of Congress that will see the full version before the redaction takes place. My guess is that the version we will see will not be available before May and only then if the Democrats do not tie things up with lawsuits. Of course this being the party of 'anybody but Trump' you can bet the lawsuits will tie this up.... And then they will blame Trump.

I did find this funny:

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, plans to criticize Attorney General Barr for his "unacceptable handling" of special counsel Robert Mueller's report when Barr appears before her panel on Tuesday.
Lowey will tell Barr that his summary of Mueller's report "seems to cherry pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion possible" for President Trump, according to an excerpt from her opening remarks released Monday evening.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...mueller-report

She has not seen the report, yet she is critical of a summary of the report for not being a good summary. This is why Congress can never be taken seriously when running for election every two years. They lie and have no shame about doing so. Not just the Democrats, this is simply the latest example.