• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Democrats Seek to Protect Mueller From Being Fired

JoeTrumps said:
that's you liberals problem in a nutshell: you've seen to many movies.
Click to expand...
Actually, aside from younger viewers and males, movie going seems to be fairly demographically representative. In some regards, demographics most likely to be conservative (males, caucasians) view films much more or slightly less than their demographic share, respectively. Also, the south seems to be more likely than the northeast to be movie goers.

Sorry. Was that too nerdy?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Where is the proof of all those things? Where is the proof Flynn was illegally surveiled and that that is the only basis for this investigation.

And which 'possible' surveillance from the Obama administration? We already seen one fatuous, fantasy claim from Trump on that disproven.
Click to expand...

https://nypost.com/2018/01/20/gop-making-memo-public-will-prove-obama-spied-on-trump/

It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me | TheHill

FBI used Trump-Russia dossier to get Carter Page FISA warrant - Business Insider
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Actually, Congress can certainly do that through legislation. They already passed legislation stating that the president can't fire a special counsel "without cause"...but the "without cause" clause left too much wiggle room. The legislation proposed by Booker removes that wiggle room altogether.
Click to expand...

No they can't. It violates the seperation of powers.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I would care if they investigated Trump for a particular crime and in a reasonable amount of time charged him with that crime and brought him to justice. I would call my representative and demand he be impeached.

I am not for government witch hunts which make up a crime to start an investigation in the hope by chance they can find something illegal. To me that is the Gestapo crap that we don't need in this country. Obstruction of justice should only apply if they can prove he committed the crime they were investigating. What is next? open ended search warrants. Kick your door down and search you and investigate you for years until they find something they can charge you with. And if you object you are charged with obstruction of justice.

This is out of hand. If they cannot prove Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election the whole thing is nothing but a witch hunt and the trampling of our rights.
Click to expand...

"I believe the time has come to bring that investigation and the other investigations of this matter to an end. One year of Watergate is enough."

-Richard Nixon, 1974 State of the Union speech
Richard Nixon: Address on the State of the Union Delivered Before a Joint Session of the Congress
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Nixon was right.
Click to expand...

Before trump came along nobody would have agreed with you. I would say about 37% of the country (hard trump supporters) would certainly agree with you now, which certainly says something about their respect for the rule of law, that they were always ready to do away with it. They were just waiting for the right kind of person to come along.

Time to make a poll!
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Nope...it's obvious. The congress critters should know better.
Click to expand...

Depends upon how the bill is written.
But no fear, the Republicans will not vote for it. For most that would be in concert with lack of morals and sense of duty to the country. Party First.
 
Cardinal said:
Before trump came along nobody would have agreed with you. I would say at about 37% of the country (hard trump supporters) would certainly agree with you now, which certainly says something about their respect for the rule of law, that were always ready to dismiss it. They were just waiting for the right kind of person to come along.
Click to expand...

if only elections were won based on self-rightousness. You people would never lose another election.
 
JANFU said:
Depends upon how the bill is written.
But no fear, the Republicans will not vote for it. For most that would be in concert with lack of morals and sense of duty to the country. Party First.
Click to expand...

if only elections were won based on self-rightousness. You people would never lose another election.
 
JANFU said:
Depends upon how the bill is written.
But no fear, the Republicans will not vote for it. For most that would be in concert with lack of morals and sense of duty to the country. Party First.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. A special council works for the DOJ which is part of the Executive Branch. Congress can't tell the president who can and cannot be fired, whithin the Executive Branch.


The only people who will vote for it, are the ones that are too stupid and too ignorant to understand what The Constitution says.
 
Lursa said:
If he's a criminal he doesn't belong in office.

Are there tons of criminals in office in the US? Probably.

Should we allow it? No.
Click to expand...

Just about everyone in this country has committed a crime at some point in their life. I know most people think they are Jesus and can walk on water but the truth and the facts say different. So to be fair we should conduct unending criminal investigation against everyone currently in office until we find that crime they committed and remove them from office.

Oh lets do the same thing to every citizen in this country as well. I say the investigation continues until we find that one wrong doing and make sure they are punished for it. Sorry but I don't want to live that world.

I have driven drunk in my youth especially if you consider 2 drinks legally drunk. That is the same thing people are currently sitting in prison for because they were unlucky enough to have a child run out from between 2 cars and they hit and killed the child. The fact the outcome would be the same drunk or sober does not matter. If you were not drinking it is an unavoidable accident. The child is at fault. If you had 2 beers and pizza you are a criminal in the exact same circumstances.

I committed the same crime driving drunk but because I was lucky and no child ran our in front of my car I don't have to go to prison. Because I did not get caught by the police I don't have record of DUI. I can walk on water and point my finger at the person in prison and call him names. I am a good person and the guy in prison is not.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, you can demand that your representative (if he or she is a Republican) impeach Trump all you like, it ain't gonna happen. So frankly, there's no reason for you to worry yourself over this.
Click to expand...

You will be surprised how things can change if you make yourself heard. Especially on the local level. I have petitioned our local leaders and they do respond.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You will be surprised how things can change if you make yourself heard. Especially on the local level. I have petitioned our local leaders and they do respond.
Click to expand...

Still not gonna happen, so again you don't need to concern yourself with the investigation.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Just about everyone in this country has committed a crime at some point in their life. I know most people think they are Jesus and can walk on water but the truth and the facts say different. So to be fair we should conduct unending criminal investigation against everyone currently in office until we find that crime they committed and remove them from office.

Oh lets do the same thing to every citizen in this country as well. I say the investigation continues until we find that one wrong doing and make sure they are punished for it. Sorry but I don't want to live that world.

I have driven drunk in my youth especially if you consider 2 drinks legally drunk. That is the same thing people are currently sitting in prison for because they were unlucky enough to have a child run out from between 2 cars and they hit and killed the child. The fact the outcome would be the same drunk or sober does not matter. If you were not drinking it is an unavoidable accident. The child is at fault. If you had 2 beers and pizza you are a criminal in the exact same circumstances.

I committed the same crime driving drunk but because I was lucky and no child ran our in front of my car I don't have to go to prison. Because I did not get caught by the police I don't have record of DUI. I can walk on water and point my finger at the person in prison and call him names. I am a good person and the guy in prison is not.
Click to expand...

I never did. Neither did my parents.

I call BS on that ridiculous justification.
 
apdst said:
No they can't. It violates the seperation of powers.
Click to expand...

Yes they can.

President Nixon decided to resign in 1974 under pressure from Republican senators rather than fight his impeachment in the House.

Afterward, a wary Congress passed a new law with high hopes of heading off another such constitutional crisis. The law authorized the attorney general to turn to a panel of judges who in turn would choose an “independent counsel” to investigate the White House in future cases.

The unintended result was to create a new Washington industry of endless, costly investigations that churned for years and often ended in no significant charges. By 1999, Republicans and Democrats agreed to let the independent counsel law die and to return the full prosecution power to the Justice Department.

That led the Clinton administration in 1999 to adopt rules under which the Justice Department agreed that in future cases, it would appoint prosecutors who were somewhat independent of that president's appointees.

But no one contends the special counsel is entirely shielded.

Just because that law passed after Watergate is no longer in effect, the fact that it WAS passed and enacted (and apparently passed Constitutional muster) means that it CAN be done, and probably with even more strictures than the original.
 
Lursa said:
Sorry it's so rare in your life to be surrounded by people who arent criminals
Click to expand...

Oh but the people around me as well as myself never got caught so we are the good guys. Maybe not perfect like Jesus or yourself but close.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Oh but the people around me as well as myself never got caught so we are the good guys. Maybe not perfect like Jesus or yourself but close.
Click to expand...

If that makes you feel better...but now I can see why you make excuses for politicians.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes they can.

President Nixon decided to resign in 1974 under pressure from Republican senators rather than fight his impeachment in the House.

Afterward, a wary Congress passed a new law with high hopes of heading off another such constitutional crisis. The law authorized the attorney general to turn to a panel of judges who in turn would choose an “independent counsel” to investigate the White House in future cases.

The unintended result was to create a new Washington industry of endless, costly investigations that churned for years and often ended in no significant charges. By 1999, Republicans and Democrats agreed to let the independent counsel law die and to return the full prosecution power to the Justice Department.

That led the Clinton administration in 1999 to adopt rules under which the Justice Department agreed that in future cases, it would appoint prosecutors who were somewhat independent of that president's appointees.

But no one contends the special counsel is entirely shielded.

Just because that law passed after Watergate is no longer in effect, the fact that it WAS passed and enacted (and apparently passed Constitutional muster) means that it CAN be done, and probably with even more strictures than the original.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove anything. You know that, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom