HEM: Semi-Regular Observations
-
8/12/18 - Big surprise. A coordinated effort among newspapers to attack the president. Truth is, that’s all it’s been since he started winning primaries. He fought back. He took the fight directly to people through Twitter. And the national media when bananas. They could not take their credibility being challenged. “Fake news” is the entire package – failing to report successes, minimizing positive news, running “commentary” as it is news, holding yourself out as an objective source while attacking based on political beliefs. It’s the same song and dance. Now, newspapers are coordinating editorials to combat the attack on free press. REALITY CHECK - ITS AN ATTACK ON THE PROPAGANDA WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The press was Obama’s lap dog. Where was the watchdog press then? The mainstream media is a joke, and President Trump has called them on it. Now they whine like spoiled brats they are.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/11/media/boston-globe-free-press-editorial/index.html
-
@HighEliteMajor Thanks for not saying he’s the GOAT and starting another GOAT debate like we had a few months ago in basketball.
-
About time they brought charges. Just hope that this man gets convicted. Some days it feels like we are closer to the Wild West than we are to a modern society.
-
8/15/18 The perfect example of “fiction” from the KC Star. The Star has been on the open borders, pro “bring any immigrant to the country regardless of background, values, and security” bandwagon for quite some time. No bigger evidence is the laughable front page coverage of some anonymous Lawrence chemist. Today, the Star again provides front page reporting on this non-story. Read the story. The Star claims that the proper deportation proceedings led to a “grass roots revolt.” Again, a joke. There was no revolt. A small number of folks holding signs isn’t a revolt. Online petitions aren’t a “revolt.” Just purposeful and dishonest hyperbole. The Star, by it’s prior front page coverage, created the purported importance of the news. Try this – follow the law. Enforce the law. Send the illegals back to where they came from. Every one of them has a sob story. Most have families. But that’s not the standard that should be utilized. Let’s focus on getting folks here legally, and with high scrutiny. That’s the stark difference between left and right. Remember, the KC Star and the left want everyone to be here. They operate on feelings, and the law, and logic are secondary. See the last three links. The left doesn’t care about that story. EXTREMIST MUSLIMS ARE A SCOURGE ON THIS EARTH AND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN THIS COUNTRY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. The problem is, when they come, how do you ferret out the freaks? Donald Trump, Jr. made the best comment during the campaign. if you were given a bowl of Skittles and you knew two or three were poisonous, would you eat one? Remember, entry to this country is a privilege and not a right. We can scrutinize who we allow in with great detail. And I’m always interested to hear the silence – the crickets – from the “other Muslims” when it comes to the extremists. Do they speak out? Do they condemn? Do they create groups that combat the extremists (those that murder, rape, and destroy) and challenge their approach? Sound familiar?
And the fact is, the story that is contained in the final links are far more newsworthy that some chemist in Lawrence who failed to ensure that he was legal – the most important thing in his life, perhaps. But not important enough to take care of, apparently. This is the KC Star manufacturing the importance of news, to fit their political narrative.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article216660415.html
-
You should learn the stories before calling them sob stories.
-
@HighEliteMajor when was the last time you vocally protested crimes by white supremacists? Yes, this does sound familiar. You want ethnic groups to be responsible for the actions of other members of the same ethnic group, it seems. That’s how I read you.
-
Unfortunately the KC Star has turned into a joke. When I read the newspaper I like to read pieces that are not bias and report the actual news. However, the Star does not do that anymore.
@wissox doesn’t everyone have a “sob story” nobody’s life is perfect. It’s called life.
-
@Woodrow I’ve said it here before in this thread even I think. Before calling them sob stories, learn about the refugees coming to our country from Central America. A bus ride back to Honduras or El Salvador would be a death sentence for some of my students I taught for the last 6 years. Escaping MS13 is one of those stories I heard. 2 wonderful 16 year old girls got here from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the worlds most dangerous city. Do you really favor sending them back there? Todays conservatives do I guess when they say “send them all back” without even thinking about what that means. It also means vast number of unfilled jobs because the refugees Americans malign, do a lot of jobs that bring strawberries to your table, or milk to your wheaties, or wheaties to your milk for that matter. Your manicured lawns and office parks will be less so as more and more immigrants are being sent home.
-
Gosh, the moral compass of the country is broken. American society seems to be so much more jaded, suspicious, judgmental, polarized, self-serving and reactionary.
Hope this trend has peaked and we regress to the mean soon.
-
If we lock down the borders and send all the illegals home? Who will pick the strawberries, mow the lawns, clean the houses of our wealthy? I mean they do the jobs Americans don’t want to do.
LMAO
I wonder why Americans don’t want to work those jobs? UM could it be because they don’t pay enough? The problem with letting anybody and everybody with a sob story come in (which by the way is everybody). You flood the market with unskilled and uneducated labor. Driving down the cost for unskilled and uneducated labor. As Illegals will work for dirt cheap. Even the Black communities are suffering from undocumented and illegal immigration. As they are being undercut by the plethora of cheap labor that our current immigration approach seems to be.
Please stop with the you don’t care dribble? Everybody cares.
Everything is cause and effect. Sadly I’m finding out Libs/DNC never think about the effects just the cause.
Yet next week the topic will be hourly wages aren’t nearly high enough under the Trump economy. He should be impeached?
-
It isn’t as simple as “those damn illegals are stealing our jobs!” Without the cheap labor, produce probably gets made elsewhere instead of here. Which is a lot of money lost. Add in that if the price of the service/product increases, people won’t spend as much elsewhere.
Of course, it could result in people spending more money in the U.S. but that seems unlikely. The main problem is that the increase in the cost of the service/product is more than the tariff to have the product made somewhere else. If the service cost increases, the service will probably no longer exist.
This is not as simple as “Americans would take over those jobs.” Because it is simply not true. I work for a company that does manual labor in many different trades. And the problem isn’t pay. It isn’t demand from the consumers. The problem is that we can’t hire enough people. Most people don’t want to work in the heat and do a manual labor job when they can sit in the A/C and get paid enough money to not work outside. And I can’t blame them. I weed-eated for a company for an entire summer. Thousands of hours kicking sand and rocks back up into my face. And that was the job that made me sure I was going to graduate college and get an office job lol.
The main reason though, that American’s wouldn’t take those jobs and that it makes no sense to kick out all illegals, is the fact that their cost of living would increase significantly and basically mean they were getting paid the same shitty salary we are paying Mexicans right now, only they are busting their ass twice as hard to live an equally shitty life.
-
You keep saying inciting hate and violence. Well for 8 years I got called a racist because I didn’t vote for and didn’t agree with everything the previous president wanted to do. Where was everybody then? Nobody seemed to have a problem calling, and grouping people into a so called racist group just because they disagreed. Where was the justice warriors? No not a peep from Libs and the DNC. You know those fair minded people that just want to sit down and compromise?
Then people wonder why the love for Trump? Really?
-
Not voting for a president on policy grounds does not make you a racist. The trouble with President Obama was that a lot of people claimed to disagree on policy grounds, but then trotted out silly arguments like:
-
He’s a Muslim (untrue, but even if true, there’s nothing in US law to prohibit a Muslim president)
-
He was not born in the US (also untrue).
Simply put, lots of people (not pointing at you, just outlining the arguments) said their quibble with Obama was policy, but argued things that were simply veiled racism like anti-Muslim rhetoric and birtherism. Both attempt to suggest that Barack Obama was not “American” enough to be president.
It was hard to take some prominent politicians seriously when they said their issue with Obama was policy related, all the while seeing them “like” or even personally circulate jokes comparing President Obama and his family to gorillas, etc. Those are not policy arguments. Those are arguments rooted in racism. Again, not saying you did any of these things, just that lots of people did do these things while also arguing that their issues with Obama were policy driven.
Now, I will say that too many people painted with too broad a brush regarding racism against President Obama. There were some reasonable criticisms of the President. He was not perfect. I had my own criticisms of him, even though I supported him throughout his presidency.
Part of that, however, was that too often the chorus against him was led by individuals with racial undertones to their arguments, making it very difficult for individuals with true policy issues to make themselves heard.
That’s what makes racism so ugly. We can’t even have a reasonable policy discussion because those peddling their hate suck up all the airspace around the issue, preventing reasonable people from actually talking about the issue.
-
-
You make a great point. In 2012, Georgia had to have prisoners in the state’s penitentiary system pick fruit due to a worker shortage.
The thing about harvesting crops is that, when doing so by hand, because you are paid by volume, as the article says, you have to 1) work very hard and 2) be very good at it to make a decent wage.
Many workers in the US don’t want to do that because the time and effort it takes to become skilled enough in the job to make a decent wage is very taxing.
There’s another round of articles out over the last year detailing the same problem.
Part of the issue with this is perception. Many people, once they see a minority class doing certain work, devalue that work, making it less desirable as a career.
-
@justanotherfan The better policy decision would be additionally funding a program for registering current Illegal Immigrants and offering them all Work Visa’s that are good for as long as they pay taxes and don’t commit a felony.
Additionally, you severely punish anyone who houses or hires illegals that don’t register in an attempt to save money on taxes. This could be done using a whistleblower/bounty law where ratting out a company that is hiring illegals would be given half of the money resulting from the fines. The fines of course would have to be so big that it wouldn’t be even close to worth hiring an unregistered illegal.
I have no issues with a cheap workforce. But they do need to pay taxes because they do use things provided by our government and the taxpayers. It’s that simple. About 1.7% of the U.S. population is Illegal Immigrants (12.5M estimated). And people pretend like the shitty jobs they fill is what is hurting the country. That is inherently false. What is hurting the country more than having a great supply of cheap labor is that we aren’t collecting billions of dollars in taxes. (By my estimate, roughly $37.5B should be collected by the 12.5M illegal immigrants who live here). I do know that some of them pay taxes, hoping for immunity some day. But, I would say that is not the case for most. Even if half were, we are talking about a very large amount of money. This also doesn’t include employers who should be paying an additional $19B into Social Security and Medicaid for their portion of Employer’s taxes. Which, again, is a large number even if cut in half.
We simply need to capitalize on the low wage workforce, not attack it because we keep forgetting history and how immigrants coming in to do low wage jobs is literally how the country was built from day 1. And has been how this country has thrived. How many more times do we need to learn this lesson? Italians, Irish and Asians have all done this same exact thing. The U.S. is still standing.
What is funny to me, it is always those who are scared of someone being better than them that fight this the most. Most Irish around the Civil War Era were FOR slavery simply because they didn’t want the competition for low wage jobs in the North. This, to me, is what most middle-class American’s are scared of today. Competition. Conservatives today crack me up because they are the biggest Champions of “Competition and Capitalism and a Free Market”, but fear all of those things the moment you bring up a Minority population coming in and “stealing all the good jobs that could go to Americans.”
-
Yea I was never big on the whole Birth certificate issue as some where. Yet just as in the case of Trump not showing his tax returns. Obama could’ve brought that issue to a close quite quickly just by showing his birth certificate so much sooner than he did. Once Obama revealed his birth certificate the issue was dead. A lesson Trump it seems hasn’t learned yet.
Sometimes people create unnecessary turmoil. Even if the unfounded claims are indeed based in craziness.
As for the claim of the this mythical movement not to elect Obama as president because he was black? I do believe is unfounded. Sure there were people that didn’t vote for Obama because he was black. Just like there were people that voted for him because he was black. Just as there are persons of color that won’t vote for a person that is white, women that don’t vote men, and vice versa. There will always be these types of persons on the fringes, but hardly main stream. Let alone big enough to sway an election. After all Obama was elected president, and twice at that.
I think? Just an opinion? You had a few isolated incidents of racist persons getting way too much attention by certain media outlets. Thereby creating this hysteria that the KKK is back large and in charge, and that all right leaning white people are racist. When in fact it was just a few misguided individuals, that have some serious social issues. Yet you still see and hear some of this after math on a lot of talking points and media outlets. The theme being now, if a person voted for Trump they are some how racist? Seems a bit unfair.
Just me again, but I think that maybe we as a society are jumping the gun with some of the claims that are being thrown around in this hostile political environment we find ourselves today. To be labeled a racist is quite serious. Case in point? People are losing jobs and being barred from social gatherings all because they voted for Trump… Doesn’t seem like a fair and free society to me? Again I concur they are isolated situations carried out by misguided persons. Yet there seems not to be much pup on this issue from the media. Which only leaves some Americans to believe that the media is indeed bias.
The real question we should be asking? Why did middle America and the Rust Belt abandon the DNC party this last election? That’s the question the DNC should be asking it’s self. And claiming it was racism, isn’t a legit and just answer.
-
@DoubleDD Obama released 11 years of tax returns as a presidential candidate. You’re comparing horseshoes and hand grenades.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD Obama released 11 years of tax returns as a presidential candidate. You’re comparing horseshoes and hand grenades.
Actually I think if you go back read what I was saying it was quite comparable. Both withheld a private document that so many wanted to see.
Obama relented finally and revealed his birth certificate. The issue went away. Where as Trump still hasn’t and the issue still persists.
-
Its a valid point you make. Yet I would counter if we didn’t make it so easy for persons to stay home smoke dope and play video games all day with all our social programs. They’d have to get a job. Hence no more man power shortage.
-
Also, it should be noted that while presidential candidates traditionally release their taxes, it is not traditionally expected that they release their birth certificate.
The notion that Obama should have released his birth certificate simply because someone with racial motivations decided to question it is in itself a form of racism - that as a minority, Obama should have to answer any question with proof, no matter how absurd or ridiculous, in order to prove his legitimacy.
People often overlook this as a subtle form of racism - that minorities must provide proof any time any non-minority questions them or what they are doing, or satisfy the questions of every non-minority before they are legitimized - somewhat like police requiring ID when they stop minorities doing every day activities, but that’s another issue for another day.
I have heard, throughout the years, that Obama should have released his birth certificate, his college grades, his law license and his admissions letters to college simply because someone questioned it, and “he could clear it up by releasing the documents.”
President Obama rightly recognized this as a form of racism, that if he provided proof for every challenge, the flood of challenges would never cease.
-
@DoubleDD sources? Stats that can be checked? Where is your basis for that statement coming from?
-
@DoubleDD see what @justanotherfan said… thats exactly the point here.
-
I think you have me mistaken. I don’t really care about a politician releasing his birth certificate or tax returns. There is no law that says they must. Plus I’m pretty sure the FBI and IRS do a fine job of vetting persons running the for office.
I’m also not comparing the two. I’m just pointing a person can save themselves a lot of trouble by just showing the people what they want to know.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@DoubleDD sources? Stats that can be checked? Where is your basis for that statement coming from?
This isn’t what you’re looking for but I though it was a decent read.
-
@DoubleDD The IRS cares about whether you are paying your taxes. I don’t think they care about much else, and yes, I think we can assume that Donald Trump pays his taxes. The purpose of providing your tax returns as a candidate pertains more to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which states:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
And it has been standard behavior for presidential candidates to provide their tax returns.
When was the last time you heard of a President’s citizenship being questioned? Yes, I do think by the time a candidate is running for office his citizenship has been pretty well vetted.
-
When has the last time you heard of Impeachment when the president hasn’t done anything?
The Emolument Clause maybe be the standard but it’s not the law. There is no law that says a person has to show their tax returns to serve in the government.
-
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
(other articles were dropped)
-
approxinfinity said:
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
(other articles were dropped)
Come on he lied about having sexual relationships with an intern in the White House. Even if he didn’t lie he still had a sexual relationship with an intern in the White House.
And for the record I liked Old Bill. Still do. Even though some stories have come out that he has been a bit too aggressive with the opposite sex.
-
@DoubleDD He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Had he not done those things, he wouldn’t have been impeached.
Do you think obstruction of justice should be an impeachable offense? And, why do you think Trump’s lawyers are trying to avoid having him testify?
-
@justanotherfan Of course, Trump promised to provide his tax returns, so that was a lie. It also took our current President a few years before he acknowledged that Obama’s birth certificate was genuine–and then only after repeated pressure during the campaign. A few years during which he continued to claim that he had “people in Hawaii” who had investigated and had discovered amazing evidence about Obama’s BCert that Trump promised he would reveal.
The man can’t help lying, even when he has no reason to!
-
@DoubleDD The prohibition against emoluments indeed is the law. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It is not, perhaps, separately spelled out in federal statutes. But do not say it is not the law!
-
Well you are a judge even though retired. I’ll take your word for it.
-
I think your reaching a bit. Why should Trump talk to Mueller? Mueller has no reason or right to demand such a meeting. Trump hasn’t done anything wrong. Mueller is just trying to find some wrong doing. Which I understand what your saying.
Yet it’s common knowledge when a person is picked up by police not to say anything until a lawyer is present. Why is that? That is street cred, and basic survival in this world of litigation.
Look I get you loath Trump. Yet he would be stupid to engage in such a conversation. Especially when there is no reason for such a conversation.
Basic street knowledge.
-
@DoubleDD My point is that Trump firing people due to the Russia investigation, as well as his tweets demanding the investigation to cease, etc could be construed as obstruction of justice, and as @mayjay mentioned, Trump is a habitual liar, and if he were to take the stand, he’d almost certainly get himself a perjury charge as well.
So, your original question was “when was a President impeached for nothing?” and my point was, Trump’s actions are not much different than Clinton’s. So if you think Trump has done nothing, then Clinton is the comp you seek.
-
You do know how to tell when a Politician is lying? When their lips are moving. Lmao.
-
@approxinfinity to go to bed don’t bother yourself with me. I’m just stirring the pot.
-
@DoubleDD Actually, Mueller could just subpoena Trump and make him testify at the grand jury where he would not have the right to an attorney. But Mueller is trying to get a meeting instead in order to avoid a confrontation and possible constitutional crisis.
Trump would have to appear and testify (or plead the 5th, but he could not then make any statements at all–can you imagine?), but only if the lapdog rightwing judges and justices follow the legal precedent sought by the rabid attackers of Bill Clinton. Now that their Darling Donald is in the crosshairs, I have no doubt they will decide Clinton should not have had to appear.
-
@DoubleDD those fluctuations happen all of the time. When the country had almost no Welfare, the country damn near collapsed…
I’m not saying that I want a ton of people dependent on Welfare. There are a lot of things we waste tax payer money on. But, we are not replacing 12.5M low wage workers with Americans. The effect would largely be something we don’t want to see happen.
It has been a long-time consensus from economists that an unemployment rate from 2.5% to 4% is a great place for an economy to be. Higher than 4% and wages get stagnant. Lower than 2.5% and inflation could take off into a theorized uncontrollable cycle of wage increases followed by price increases. So, at 3.9% in the U.S. right now, we are right where we want to be. It makes for an economy that is predictable and reliable. It is one of the main reasons why Wall Street continues to climb to all-time highs.
So, getting rid of 12M low income workers and replacing them with 12M middle-income workers and dropping the unemployment rate down near that dangerous 2.5% is something I would not be very interested in. It would disrupt 695M Americans (and millions world-wide quite frankly) far more than it would benefit the 6M who are currently unemployed (if you could theoretically swap out people who are unemployed with illegal immigrants).
Our economy is in a good place right now. The growth of the Market helps hundreds of millions of people. Part of that successful economy is having a truly low-wage workforce in our own backyards.
-
Plain ol’ lying during a political campaign is not against the law, if it were, all politicians would be in jail… joining all cheating spouses, car salesmen, preachers, school kids and most members of society who at one time or another lie…some more than others, of course. Lying becomes a crime when it raises to the level of perjury, fraud or obstruction of justice and likely other circumstances such as when it causes hardship to someone else.
-
in my Economics class I was taught that economists consider 4% as being full employment or no unemployment since that 4% includes people in between jobs, people taking sabbatical leave or going back to school or just time off, people retiring early, discouraged workers not actively seeking work and so on. Of course I have seen different number as low as 2% but 3% to 4% appears to be the more commonly cited figures.
-
Um no you’re wrong on that one. If he tried without any real evidence? OBG. He would ruin everything he’s ever done.
He has no evidence and has no leg to stand on. He can’t subpoena the president with evidence why he is issuing the subpoena. He’s screwed if he tries to do it. You know it and so do I. Muller has nothing he’s just trying to find something.
-
Don’t worry I love crap out of you. You’re a fair poster. No problems.
-
DoubleDD said:
Um no you’re wrong on that one. If he tried without any real evidence? OBG. He would ruin everything he’s ever done.
He has no evidence and has no leg to stand on. He can’t subpoena the president with evidence why he is issuing the subpoena. He’s screwed if he tries to do it. You know it and so do I. Muller has nothing he’s just trying to find something.
He is charged by law to investigate. Questioning witnesses is part of that. So, yes, he can subpoena the president.
-
Yes, he can subpoena the president provided he can show relevance to the case; he cannot just go on a fishing expedition and expect a judge to sign off on it particularly if the subject is not just a witness but also a target and the fourth and fifth amendment would likely kick in and the subpoena quashed. This article has some good information with citations to actual court decisions.
-
@JayHawkFanToo If that were a bar exam question, I am afraid you would not have passed. There is nothing in the article that supports your argument. The rights of a party to subpoena a witness has to do with trial. As your article’s commenters pointed out, a grand jury is different. And, incidentally, Mueller has previously said Trump is not the target, so that is out.
-
"Rather than a warrant to arrest or search the property of a suspect, a subpoena is an order to a witness to produce documents or provide testimony. Subpoenas are available in civil as well as criminal proceedings, and can be obtained by any party. Normally a party who requires the disclosure of documents under subpoena before trial must show that (1) the documents are evidentiary and relevant, (2) they cannot otherwise be procured with due diligence, (3) they are needed for trial preparation, and (4) the application is made in good faith and is not a ‘fishing expedition’: United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), pp 699–700."
As I recall, Nixon was at the time the sitting president…
and…
"I originally stated that a subpoena is directed at a witness rather than a suspect. As pointed out in the comments below, a suspect can be a witness as well. But at common law, a subpoena could not be issued to a defendant in a criminal case because of the privilege against self-incrimination: R v Purnell (1748) 1 Wils 239, p 243. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), pp 634–635, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination reflected this part of the common law."
Now, if you believe Trump is not the ultimate target, then I have some waterfront property in Florida you might be interested…you cant’t possibly be that naive.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Being a target is a technical term. The Nixon case was talking about a “party”. This shows you are not the lawyer you aspire to be. The grand jury ain’t a party. And Nixon was forced to comply, incidentally.
-
Because in the Nixon case there was plenty of evidence of collusion. So far Muller has not shown any evidence of collusion with Russia and the only case he has brought up so far, supposedly his strongest, is about tax evasion that happened much before Trump was even a candidate and has nothing to do with Trump or collusion with Russia or even his original charter.
Looks like Mueller should be investigating Hillary instead.
By the way, I am not a lawyer and never wanted to be one. I followed the same advise that Téa Leoni’s father gave her when she thought she wanted to be an archeologist…don’t do what you are good at, do what you are passionate about and become good at it.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Incidentally, Nixon involved a subpoena for documents and tapes sought for use in a pending criminal proceeding against 7 indicted defendants. Nixon was a third-party, and was trying to quash on a claim of executive privilege (essentially, the need for confidentiality of presidential conversations and communications).
Was there any doubt in Nixon in 1974 who the ultimate target might have been? Nixon resigned 3 weeks after the decision after his support in Congress dissolved when the produced tapes proved he actively sought to illegally impede the Watergate investigation.
In addition, the Court in Nixon expressly approved a prior Court precedent applicable here:
Only recently the Court restated the ancient proposition of law, albeit in the context of a grand jury inquiry rather than a trial,
"that `the public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence,’ except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege, United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. [323, 331 (1950)]; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 438 (1932) . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972).
That reference seems to indicate the principle applies more in a grand jury subpoena!
-
@JayHawkFanToo Tea Leoni should have been a pro golfer.
