@divineorder

Obama, Mueller and others for the uranium deal. I don't know how serious they are about this, but from what I've read they seem to think that there was wrongdoing in the deal.

House Republicans are investigating Hillary's Russian Uranium Deal

On a side note, Bernie may have won the primary according to this website. If this is true, then we witnessed the biggest election scandal in history. Lots and lots of evidence that shows that he did. But if he did win and then beat Trump, would things be much different? Especially in the Middle East?

Democracy Lost

“Constitutional Expert Says Move to Impeach Trump Can Proceed Without Derailing FBI’s Criminal Probe”. https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/1/constitutional_expert_says_move_t...

My personal fav is the one having to do with threatening to unleash nuclear hell on the planet. YMMV

JOHN BONIFAZ: Yes. We would start with the violations of the two anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution: the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. This president is treating the Oval Office as a profit-making enterprise at the public expense. He’s taking illegal payments and benefits from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and he’s taking illegal payments from the state governments around the country, as well as from the federal government, in violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause. That’s point one, or point one and two, if you will, because they’re two different clauses.

Then you have obstruction of justice. This is a president who first demanded loyalty of his former FBI Director James Comey. When he didn’t get that, he went ahead and fired him for not letting go, as he put it, of the Flynn investigation and “this Russia thing,” as he said. That was obstruction of justice. That FBI director was involved in investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election and its potential connection to the Trump campaign. It led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. And now we know, based on new reporting by The New York Times, that soon after that, the president sought to stop the congressional investigations in the Senate that were going—that continue to go on with respect to that. So obstruction of justice, which was the first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon, would certainly be part of this case.

Then we have the potential conspiracy with the Russian government, potential collusion, to violate federal campaign finance laws and other federal laws and to interfere with our elections. That evidence continues to be built. But it’s also an impeachment question, and the House Judiciary Committee should take that up.

Then we have the abuse of the pardon power. This is a power that is not unlimited by a president. And what the president has done with the pardon of former sheriff, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is he has essentially undermined the due process rights of the thousands of people who were impacted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s illegal actions. This is the sheriff who was found in criminal contempt of court for refusing to stop his illegal practices of detaining people based on the color of their skin. And this president went ahead and used the pardon power in a wrongful way to pardon him.

Then we have the giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, not just what the president said after the Charlottesville tragedy, but also his most recent tweets, tweeting out anti-Muslim—inflammatory anti-Muslim videos. This president is giving that aid and comfort to white supremacists.

Then, you know, this president also has engaged in recklessly threatening nuclear war. Now, the fact is that the president is the commander-in-chief. He does not have the power to initiate a war. That is established under the War Powers Clause, despite the fact that we’ve seen violations of it in the past. But this takes it to a whole new scale. This is a president who literally is engaged in recklessly threatening nuclear war against a foreign nation. That reckless and wanton disregard for the established norms and for essentially putting millions of lives at stake, threatening really the world, is an impeachable offense.

And then, finally, most recently, this president has talked about how he would like to see the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton and other political adversaries. This misuse of the Justice Department, or attempted misuse, to prosecute political adversaries would be another impeachable offense worthy of investigation.

@divineorder

And then, finally, most recently, this president has talked about how he would like to see the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton and other political adversaries. This misuse of the Justice Department, or attempted misuse, to prosecute political adversaries would be another impeachable offense worthy of investigation.

When political adversaries do wrong, they should be punished for violating the, not their ideology. Trump is of course deserving of such prosecution, hence I agree with the notion that DOJ has been extensively politicized (corrupted). Prosecution of political adversaries for cause is necessary, not deplorable.

“Constitutional Expert Says Move to Impeach Trump Can Proceed Without Derailing FBI’s Criminal Probe”. https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/1/constitutional_expert_says_move_t...

My personal fav is the one having to do with threatening to unleash nuclear hell on the planet. YMMV

JOHN BONIFAZ: Yes. We would start with the violations of the two anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution: the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. This president is treating the Oval Office as a profit-making enterprise at the public expense. He’s taking illegal payments and benefits from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and he’s taking illegal payments from the state governments around the country, as well as from the federal government, in violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause. That’s point one, or point one and two, if you will, because they’re two different clauses.

Then you have obstruction of justice. This is a president who first demanded loyalty of his former FBI Director James Comey. When he didn’t get that, he went ahead and fired him for not letting go, as he put it, of the Flynn investigation and “this Russia thing,” as he said. That was obstruction of justice. That FBI director was involved in investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election and its potential connection to the Trump campaign. It led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. And now we know, based on new reporting by The New York Times, that soon after that, the president sought to stop the congressional investigations in the Senate that were going—that continue to go on with respect to that. So obstruction of justice, which was the first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon, would certainly be part of this case.

Then we have the potential conspiracy with the Russian government, potential collusion, to violate federal campaign finance laws and other federal laws and to interfere with our elections. That evidence continues to be built. But it’s also an impeachment question, and the House Judiciary Committee should take that up.

Then we have the abuse of the pardon power. This is a power that is not unlimited by a president. And what the president has done with the pardon of former sheriff, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is he has essentially undermined the due process rights of the thousands of people who were impacted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s illegal actions. This is the sheriff who was found in criminal contempt of court for refusing to stop his illegal practices of detaining people based on the color of their skin. And this president went ahead and used the pardon power in a wrongful way to pardon him.

Then we have the giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, not just what the president said after the Charlottesville tragedy, but also his most recent tweets, tweeting out anti-Muslim—inflammatory anti-Muslim videos. This president is giving that aid and comfort to white supremacists.

Then, you know, this president also has engaged in recklessly threatening nuclear war. Now, the fact is that the president is the commander-in-chief. He does not have the power to initiate a war. That is established under the War Powers Clause, despite the fact that we’ve seen violations of it in the past. But this takes it to a whole new scale. This is a president who literally is engaged in recklessly threatening nuclear war against a foreign nation. That reckless and wanton disregard for the established norms and for essentially putting millions of lives at stake, threatening really the world, is an impeachable offense.

And then, finally, most recently, this president has talked about how he would like to see the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton and other political adversaries. This misuse of the Justice Department, or attempted misuse, to prosecute political adversaries would be another impeachable offense worthy of investigation.

@detroitmechworks
of time. And, yes, found guilty leaves the Dems with no villain. Then who they gonna blame? Will never happen.

He's their excuse for EVERYTHING.

/snark

@detroitmechworks I should have read this before I responded. You said the same thing, better!

He's their excuse for EVERYTHING.

/snark