HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kentuck » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 99 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 98,310

About Me

This land is your land; This land is my land.

Journal Archives

The Ideal Republican Presidential Candidate:

He must be unpredictable. It's better if he is mentally unstable.

He must be willing to lie in all instances. And those that speak for him must be able to improvise quickly with lies on any and every subject. They must be 100% loyal.

He must be not only willing to bend the laws, but to break them at every opportunity. Rules are made for losers.

He must be willing to use patriotism as a campaign issue but be able to discard it when he needs to make a deal with enemy autocrats. He must be secure enough to hug the flag at every opportunity.

Also, he must be able to put his own personal interests above those of the country and to commit crimes to secure whatever makes him more wealthy or more powerful.

Furthermore, he can never show sympathy or pity for anyone. That would only make him look weak.

And he must always take the side of the underdog, especially when they are of questionable character or have been accused of a crime. He understands that criminals are not the bad people.

Roger Stone was on his way to jail.

Yesterday, Donald Trump commuted his sentence.

Although the president has the authority to pardon or to commute sentences of a judge and jury, he does not have the right to do so to protect his own criminality. That is obstruction of justice.

It was an overt criminal act. Roger Stone had been found guilty.

Why a commutation rather than a pardon? Is it because of the Fifth Amendment restrictions of a pardon? After a pardon, one cannot claim Fifth Amendment rights when questioned under oath.

Today, Donald Trump is tweeting his usual BS about how Stone was innocent and it was all part of the "Russian Hoax". The jury that found him guilty did not think so.

Did Stone bribe Trump to get his commutation? Trump knew he had information that would show criminality and knowledge on his part. So, it was an agreement between the two men to protect each other from criminal prosecution and punishment.

At least temporarily, some people are above the law.

Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

I'm So Tired (Take 14)

A Question: Could an Administration, up to and including the AG and the President, be charged...?

...after they were out of office? For continued obstruction of justice?

What would it require?

Or should the Democrats just forget about it and move forward, if (they) win the next election?

Do crimes cease to exist whenever the Parties in the Congress switch power? Even up to, and including, treason?

Democrats have some decisions to make.

Hard Road To Travel

Slip Slidin' Away

Is the Congress in session?

Or are they home in their districts?

How many are still in Washington?

Should they be home or in the Capitol?

We see some of them every day on TV but are they taking precautions over the virus over legislating?

Will Trump create a military confrontation before the Election?

After all, there is nothing that unites the country like a good war.

Knowing that he will do anything to help himself win, this is something we cannot discount out of hand.

I'm afraid the damage this guy has done to our country and our institutions is insurmountable.

I look at he and his Party as nothing but traitors. They have created this environment of fear and division with their eyes wide open. It is unforgivable.

Now that you have had time to assimilate it, what do you think of yesterday's SC decisions?

Things do tend to look a little different in the rear view mirror.

But, from what I have gathered, the NY state case against Trump was granted and the Congressional case against Trump was not granted, although the Chief Justice stated that no president was above the law or exempt from subpoena.

A 7-2 majority voted that a grand jury could have access to Trump's tax returns in New York case. However, it would be in secret. What kind of problems might that present?

In my opinion, the Congressional ruling is slightly more problematic. They ruled that the Congressional request for financial documents was not "narrow" enough. Who will define what "narrow" means in the future? It could be open to interpretation, relative to political opportunity. What is to prevent any Court from saying it is not "narrow" enough? Either the Congress has the power of oversight or they do not.

In appearance, it looks as if the SC is saying that no one is above the law and the President must adhere to the requests of the grand jury and must adhere to the requests from Congress of relevant information.

In reality, it might be only a cover, to delay and to deny justice in both cases, in my opinion.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 99 Next »