Trump the Autocrat.

[Cow Poke]

You're not a Trump supporter?

I tolerate him because of the alternative.

That's news to me.

Not to me!

But glad to know a LOT of what he says concerns you. I was a very tepid Obama supporter, and even more tepid Hillary voter, not supporter.

JimL can't handle that logic - if you voted for a person, you are a diehard supporter no matter what you say.

You, sir, just don't know it, but you are a RAGING RABID Trump/Hillary supporter!

[Cow Poke]

How do you know that?

It was a topic of discussion, I believe in this thread, related to a new report on Russian interference with elections. Check back HERE.

[Jim B.]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your accusation is true, the left is hardly innocent in that area.

Mussolini was a pinko commie in his yoot, and didn't move especially far from that as he aged. If you're looking for a modern day equivalent to the brown shirts, look no farther than antifa; for a group that's allegedly "anti-fascist" it sure borrows quite a bit of its modus operandi from them.

True that the left is not innocent of "might makes right" but man, lately, iin that arena, it's been like a sand lot baseball team against the NY Yankees.

Trump isn't especially ideological, or wasn't, except for this ethno-nationalism which he's latched onto in the last 20 years or so and with a vengeance since Obama's election (Hmmm....wonder why?) He was kind of a moderate Dem who didn't particularly like black folks until he became friends with Ailes and started mainlining Fox News.

The anti fa is kind of a joke, like the "Black Panthers" (two guys in Philly), Boogy Men to make the right afraid. It's a bunch of skinny hippies with black bandanas around their faces. The real threat are the people actually committing the violence like in Pittsburgh, Charlottesville, the mail bomber,s, KKK, Aryan nation, etc. Those aren't Antifa.

[Cow Poke]

True that the left is not innocent of "might makes right" but man, lately, iin that arena, it's been like a sand lot baseball team against the NY Yankees.

Trump isn't especially ideological, or wasn't, except for this ethno-nationalism which he's latched onto in the last 20 years or so and with a vengeance since Obama's election (Hmmm....wonder why?) He was kind of a moderate Dem who didn't particularly like black folks until he became friends with Ailes and started mainlining Fox News.

The anti fa is kind of a joke, like the "Black Panthers" (two guys in Philly), Boogy Men to make the right afraid. It's a bunch of skinny hippies with black bandanas around their faces. The real threat are the people actually committing the violence like in Pittsburgh, Charlottesville, the mail bomber,s, KKK, Aryan nation, etc. Those aren't Antifa.

I appreciate such a fair and balanced and totally unbiased opinion.

[Mountain Man]

So the debate among Dems now is whether or not to proceed with at least an impeachment inquiry.

One argument for it is that if you don't do it you're tacitly setting a precedent for future Presidents that it's okay to act the way Trump has acted, and that you can do it with impunity, and that even if it's a political loser for Dems, it has to be done as a check on the growth of the imperial Presidency going forward.

Another argument in favor is the assumption that enough of the public will 'go along' with impeachment once Trump's abuses are aired publicly in an impeachment inquiry.

The argument against is that even if impeachment clears the House, conviction will almost certainly fail in the Senate, and that Trump will trumpet his acquittal as "total exoneration" and it will only strengthen his hand politically in 2020. This assumption is not at all certain, however. In 1998, the Republicans held onto majorities in Congress and they won the White House, albeit under dubious circumstances, in 2000. They did all this under Clinton whose approval ratings were north of 60%, and with a robust economy and peace. Trump is a far less popular and far more divisive President. But Trump's offenses don't involve sex, and Americans have 'sex on the brain.'

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process, but that doesn't mean Congress can impeach for just anything.

Right... isn't that what Mueller's investigation, report, and public hearing was supposed to accomplish? What makes them think that a nothing-burger impeachment inquiry is somehow going to be different?

[Jim B.]

That's because there was incontrovertible evidence that Bill Clinton had indeed committed at least one crime whereas with Trump Mueller and his team of rabid Democrat investigators were unable to find sufficient evidence that Trump also broke any laws.

He directed Don McGahn to fire Mueller. That's obstruction of justice.

[Cow Poke]

He directed Don McGahn to fire Mueller. That's obstruction of justice.

Why? Did he not have the authority to fire Mueller? That wouldn't have stopped the investigation, and, apparently, Mueller wasn't at the helm much anyway. In retrospect, that would have probably been a favor to the Democrats, though they wouldn't have known it at the time.

[Jim B.]

Right... isn't that what Mueller's investigation, report, and public hearing was supposed to accomplish? What makes them think that a nothing-burger impeachment inquiry is somehow going to be different?

Because Mueller's inquiry had an extremely narrow focus and charge. An impeachment inquiry would look into all possible high crimes and misdemeanors he might have committed as president. It would have access to his tax information, which Trump desperately wants to hide, probably because of years of tax fraud and financial compromise with Rusiia and Saudi Arabia which have influenced his actions as President.

[Mountain Man]

He directed Don McGahn to fire Mueller. That's obstruction of justice.

A president exercising his constitutional authority can not be guilty of obstruction.

Besides, seeing how little involvement Mueller even had in the investigation, by all accounts doing little more than rubber-stamping the work of others, it would be hard to make the case that firing him would have obstructed anything.

[Jim B.]

Why? Did he not have the authority to fire Mueller? That wouldn't have stopped the investigation, and, apparently, Mueller wasn't at the helm much anyway. In retrospect, that would have probably been a favor to the Democrats, though they wouldn't have known it at the time.

As I understand it, if the intent is to impede an investigation into yourself, that'sobstruction of justice, even if there's no underlying crime.

[Mountain Man]

Because Mueller's inquiry had an extremely narrow focus and charge. An impeachment inquiry would look into all possible high crimes and misdemeanors he might have committed as president. It would have access to his tax information, which Trump desperately wants to hide, probably because of years of tax fraud and financial compromise with Rusiia and Saudi Arabia which have influenced his actions as President.

So it's the "We know Trump is guilty! We just have to keep digging until we find some evidence!" mantra.

[NorrinRadd]

As I understand it, if the intent is to impede an investigation into yourself, that'sobstruction of justice, even if there's no underlying crime.

Firing Mueller would not have ended the investigation, it would only have removed the head who Trump perceived to be biased and acting unfairly and improperly.

[Cow Poke]

Firing Mueller would not have ended the investigation, it would only have removed the head who Trump perceived to be biased and acting unfairly and improperly.

And when you look at some of the viciously prejudiced "investigators" on the Mueller team.... sheeeesh!

[Jim B.]

As I understand it, if the intent is to impede an investigation into yourself, that'sobstruction of justice, even if there's no underlying crime.

[Jim B.]

And when you look at some of the viciously prejudiced "investigators" on the Mueller team.... sheeeesh!

Ad hominem. Mueller is a lifelong republican who approved every member of his team.