It’s important to remember: these are not good people. Don’t let them fool you into thinking they are. That Koolaid’s REAL drunk, now, kids.
But three years ago they were accusing a (Democrat/)black guy of doing it, though the doing was frequently only in their fevered imaginations.
Just watching any of their National Conventions over the last 40 years should have clued anyone who was paying attention into the “white” part.
Timex
2792
I’m not actually even talking about stuff like that.
I’m talking about things like trade policy. Trump’s notion of trade policy is much more in line with Sanders’ nonsense, and would have been ridiculed by the GOP 3 years ago.
BTW, is all the tax cheating the Trumps did to end up with the bulk of Fred’s money without paying Estate Tax (as detailed by the NYT last year) beyond the statute of limitations?
What is the “old GOP” and when did it exist?
IMHO, this has always been part of the GOP in our lifetimes (since the Civil Rights Act upended the Parties), it’s just that decades of dog whistles are finally showing the collective Id upon it rested (Willie Horton…). Free Markets, Small Government, Strong Military, Fiscal Responsibility, etc. were just the superego putting a veneer on the Id.
I’ll maybe give you Reagan, but AIDS must be factored in to that perspective.
Clay
2795
Greetings from your new member of the Fed?
So, skin color aside… who in the world would think it’s a good idea to put Herman Cain on the Fed?
I’m baffled. The DOJ policy says you cannot charge a sitting President. How does this prevent SAYING he made a finding of obstruction, even if they can’t take action at this time?
CraigM
2797
Because Meuller felt that it is constitutionally important that a person accused of a crime be able to legally defend themselves from such claims. And the right to a speedy trial is foundational to the rule of law. Therefore charging someone with a crime, while the DOJ policy prevents any form of legal redress, is inappropriate.
Making a finding of obstruction, is not charging someone with a crime. “Charging” requires actually bringing charges. It’s like a police investigation turning over its findings to the state attorney. The state attorney is the one who charges or not.
CraigM
2799
Fine, replace charging with accusing then. Regardless that was his stated rationale. That accusing Trump of crimes, when charges could not be brought, would be a violation of his constitutional due process rights.
And let’s be honest, given the public nature of his findings, accusing him of a crime is no ways near the same as police handing over evidence to a district attorney. He would be labeled (correctly) as a criminal publicly, and judged in the court of public opinion.
To amplify what @CraigM said, and paraphrase Mueller:
“Because of DOJ policy, I can’t charge the President with obstruction. Since I can’t charge him, I won’t out-and-out say he committed obstruction, because that wouldn’t be fair in the absence of due process for the President. Due process for the President is impeachment, so only Congress can actually find that the President obstructed justice. But I will say that there is evidence that the president obstructed justice; that the evidence meets the tests that prosecutors use to make an obstruction charge, and that it is impossible for me to clear the President of obstruction.”
In other words, Mueller came as close to formally accusing the president of obstruction of justice as he thought it was permissible for someone in his role to do. Hence his consternation at Barr summarily declaring that there was insufficient evidence for obstruction, without referencing Mueller’s statement of the exclusive role for Congress in making that determination, that exclusivity being the reason for Mueller neither directly accusing nor indicting…
Is that official or something? I thought that was merely another one of the Chief Doofus’ harebrained ideas.
But seriously, whenever the cameras at the various RNCs would pan over the crowd, it was a sea of white faces with the very occasional speck af a different color.
Timex
2803
What’s amazing is that McGahn isn’t the dude who makes the call here. The Whitehouse is merely asking him to say that he doesn’t believe Trump obstructed Justice.
And he won’t. Because he thinks Trump did.
I think this is silly on the part of the Democrats. It would take what an hour or two at the most to read the redacted parts. Why give Republican any ammo?
Because they shouldn’t have to play by Barr’s bullshit rules.
I don’t follow. I’m in favor of the democrats throwing Barr in jail because of Article 1. But Pelosi is 100% correct that no impeachment should proceed without the support of the American people. As long as the Republican can plausible say hey “we are willing to work with the Democrats” but they are unwilling to negotiate they Democrats risk losing the support of the American people.
After reviewing the underacted version. The Democrats are in stronger version to demand that it be made available to everyone in Congress, for all the reason that Nadler has enumerated.
