What Is This CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS Democrats Are Warning Us About?.

a reply to: DISRAELI


CNN just skyped in a political scholar from Birmingham, England. (Boris, i think?)

He used the Watergate analogy too, when describing how/why the USA IS IN a constitutional crisis.

A little Google search shows that left-leaning U.S. politicians and scholars have been saying this for over a month.

Amazing when you consider that President Trump hasn't fired anyone at the top of the DOJ, like Nixon did.

a reply to: carewemust

Quite simply? It wouldn't. As the President, he is Muellers boss, and Muellers boss's boss. He would be well within his rights as President to fire them at will. He doesn't need a reason. There are no grounds for a Constitutional Crisis. None.

Just another way of saying they want to impeach, but have no grounds to do so, so they say it in another fashion, hoping the, heretofore, great unwashed masses will, once again, buy into what they're selling.

At the moment, not a chance of that happening. People, who are smart enough to look, are seeing enough good things happening, that they are, for now, willing to overlook any negatives.

So, there is no looming Constitutional Crisis, save in their fondest imaginings.

a reply to: carewemust
They are day-dreaming about a repetition of history.
Somebody should point them to the verdict of Karl Marx on repetitions; "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce".

a reply to: Xtrozero

Amazing what a paycheck with a bit of extra money in it will accomplish, isn't it?

That, and most Americans are most definitely a wait and see bunch. They were, for the most part, willing to give the President and his guys and gals a chance. So far, many like what they're seeing, or so I would surmise.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Truth there.

a reply to: carewemust

That's exactly, to a "T", what the Dems want. That there's little to no chance of that happening will break their little hearts.

Watergate, there was actual wrong doing. All over the place.

Here? Not so much. Certainly nothing on the scale of Tricky Dick and the boys.

The fringe of the democratic party are doomed to disappointment.

It's appearing that the REAL constitutional crisis occurred when President OBAMA, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Peter Strzok, covered up the extent that Hillary Clinton violated National Security protocols.

From newly released FBI VAULT documents...

Records available through the FBI Vault prove beyond any doubt that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her inner circle of trusted aides, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, were subjects of a formal investigation into the mishandling of classified information, beginning July 10, 2015.

Yes, you read the above correctly: A formal FBI investigation commenced well before any 2016 Democratic presidential debates and primaries.

Yet how many times did Clinton and her political and media allies claim that, whatever may have been happening, the review of her private servers and unsecured devices during her years as America’s chief diplomat was nothing more than a “normal security review,” not an “investigation”? Or, as then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed then-FBI Director James Comey to describe it, just a “matter”?

Andrew McCabe was appointed deputy director of the FBI by then-President Barack Obama and tasked with oversight of the investigation into mishandling classified information by Clinton, Abedin, Mills and other key aides.

In February 2016, the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 20,940 emails on Hillary Clintons PRIVATE IN-HOME SERVER, contained information that is presently classified.

Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the confidential level, 65 contain information classified at the secret level, and 22 contain information classified at the top-secret level.

MUCH MORE AT: www.lifezette.com...

All these secret documents on Hillary's home computer! Yet Strzok-Comey, decided that she was a little careless, and that no prosecutor would bring charges against someone who did this.

That's a constitutional crisis and crime combination, IMO.

a reply to: seagull

The thing is... Nixon supposedly didn't know that the break in was going to happen. Much like I feel about Trump and Russian collusion. Those guys were just working for him (them). What got Nixon was the cover-up.

And it turned out that "Deep Throat" was actually the then current Deputy Director of the FBI Felt.

So the only way that this is similar is if Trump covered something up. Which is what they're most likely looking for.

That little party in Saudi Arabia and the end of money dumps to the Clinton foundation sure did ruin the party bottom line. It was stated there is no DNC money for anyone running at local levels, and hasn't been for a year prior to the election per Donna Brazil. Maybe there is a way to give thru their EBT cards. Soros needs to pony up bigly now.
a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: carewemust

They are doing what they do best with the support of the MSM, controlling the narrative.

Remove the criminal Obama organisation NOW.In All departments!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'd rather give "haters" the plastic bag you get from the dry cleaners.

But paper bags double as barf bags.

The amount of 'BUT HILARY!' and 'BUT OBAMA!' in this thread is utterly bizarre.

Do you guys not realise that Hillary isn't President? Obama isn't President anymore? It doesn't matter what they might or might not have done or how innocent or guilty they might be. They have NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!

Trump is President. It is his innocence or guilt that matters.

The argument being presented here is: 'Is Trump guilty of something? BUT THE ZODIAC KILLER!'

It's just logically non-sensical, I'm sorry.

originally posted by: Painterz
The amount of 'BUT HILARY!' and 'BUT OBAMA!' in this thread is utterly bizarre.

Do you guys not realise that Hillary isn't President? Obama isn't President anymore? It doesn't matter what they might or might not have done or how innocent or guilty they might be. They have NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!

Trump is President. It is his innocence or guilt that matters.

The argument being presented here is: 'Is Trump guilty of something? BUT THE ZODIAC KILLER!'

It's just logically non-sensical, I'm sorry.

Believing that someone gets a get out of jail free card simply because they lost an election or is out of office is logically non-sensical, I'm sorry.

Par for 'government'. Most of us can say this very same thing, and it sums up government. There is only one group that has ever extorted me for my money, with threat of violence, and that is government. You own nothing, you have no right to property. Your legislature, through the black robed devils they call judges, dictate your life. The laws they pass and crimes they create are arbitrary many having no victim whatsoever. They are merely representatives of fictions (no victims) and they will put you in jail simply because your sworn servant says so. This is every day life today in the US of A.

a reply to: Painterz

This is the most ridiculous thing i have read in weeks.

I guess we should let everyone out of prison. Focus the entire national police effort in the only criminal who matters: Donald Trump. As president hes the only person eligible in the US for any criminal charges. It says so in the constitution.

Get some coffee (or covfefe....whichever you prefer), wake up a bit, then try again.

a reply to: carewemust

Basically it's when an issue in government can't be solved by the constitution. Usually when one or more of the parties negate or ignore the rule of law or political norms that the people have agreed upon.
You can research this under political science. You'll even get examples of crisis' of the past.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't think that Painterz is saying that all crime should be ignored, unless the President committed it.

I think what Painterz is suggesting, with some degree of logical validity, is that Obama and Hillary, for all that most anyone with any sense knows that at least one of them is dirtier than an oil rag, jammed into a sewer pipe, on burrito day, neither of them are currently sitting, nonchalantly sweeping a finger back and forth over the nuclear button, or given high level access to current intelligence data, nor are either of them in any level of control over policy. This means that for all there is a need to assess, dissect, and apply the law to their conduct, the presence of a potentially criminal individual in the white house NOW, is a much graver and more immediate problem, than the fact that someone may have committed prior acts.

So, for example, if we were to reduce this down to a different scale for a moment...

Lets say that a bank heist crew managed an armed robbery five years ago, and have hit the wind and vanished. If you send a SWAT team after that problem, right now, then its ability to affect the situation is largely nil, because the robbery already occurred, the group which performed it is disbanded. Yes, the crime is still serious, and must be investigated, but to roll out on that issue as if it were ongoing, would be foolish.

But, if there is an armed robbery in progress at the bank RIGHT NOW, then rolling with SWAT and a negotiation team, makes perfect sense, because there is a damned good chance that they will be able to prevent the successful commission of an ongoing offence.

For the same reason, holding up either Obama or Hillary as some sort of "Well if they can get away with it, why can't Trump" gambit, does not wash. Crime is like that sometimes. Some people are good enough at it to at least get to run before the depths of their depravity is really discovered. Others, like Trump, make the Hollywood entrance, make an awful lot of noise, do the "gangsta" walk as they roll in, and unload a mag into the ceiling to get everyone's attention, making damned certain that someone is going to spot, and act to prevent their activity. They are literally DARING the authorities to act. Its the mindset of folk like that to do so, and folk like that do not get their helicopter, they do not get their five million dollars and a safe passage to Mexico, or some non-extradition treaty nation.

And the thing is this... Trump poses a threat which can be neutralised, but Obama and Hillary, whatever they may or may not have done, have already done whatever it is they were going to do, and so pose a far smaller threat to... well, anything, than does Trump right now. So if there is something to uncover, about what is going on NOW, then it is best it be made known, and action taken to prevent it.

Look at it another way...

If you fail to see a crime in progress, you cannot call in the authorities, and they cannot act. If you do see one in progress, then you can call in the authorities, and they can act. Do you fail to act because the last guy got away with it so far, on the basis that if he can, why can't Trump?

If you do see it that way, why is it any different for any other crime in statute? Why should anyone catch car thieves, if anyone has ever gotten away with it before? I think it is pretty obvious that taking that line of reasoning is foolish, because it is deeply unreasonable by its nature.

We are indeed having a constitutional crisis.

If idiots think the FBI and DOJ has more power than the executive branch and congress.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Heh, What I see there, obfuscated in all the word salad, is..."I really can't disagree with your point, BFFT".