Posted on 06/09/2019 10:43:03 AM PDT by McQ444
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said Sunday that he believes President Donald Trump has committed crimes when he was asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent comment that she would prefer to see Trump "in prison" than "see him impeached." "He did," O'Rourke, a former House member from Texas, told ABC's "This Week" when asked about Pelosi's remark and whether he thought Trump had committed crimes that could be prosecuted. "I think that's clear from what we have learned from [special counsel Robert Mueller's] report, but I think those crimes might extend beyond what we've seen in the Mueller report." Presented with Pelosi's comment on "Fox News Sunday," another Democrat, Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, said Mueller's more than 400-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump sought to obstruct the probe presented "specific things" Trump did that were "criminal acts."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I read the article searching for any mention of a criminal act by President Trump. The only thing mentioned was the supposed instructions to McGhan to fire Mueller.
McGhan didn’t do it.
Trump denies issuing the order.
And the Dems would throw you out of office or jail you for this.
Read the Mueller Report. This is very typical of the phony obstructions charges that the Dems constantly refer to. Total crap. All of it.
The non-crimes that Trump committed may extend beyond the non-crimes detailed in Mueller's non-report.
New Pelosi strategy to pacify the lunatic fringe: rather than impeach, just wait til he’s out of office and can be indicted and go to prison.
Like being born in Kenya.
There’s “journalism” for you. As we learn that the report contains enough deliberate distortions to discard it as not credible the media, not only says the opposite but, starts just making stuff up.
The only “crimes” are PDJT questioning if Mueller has a conflict of interest and if he should be fired. That is not an action. Asking if a recusal should be reversed is not action. You have to actually take actions to obstruct an investigation. For as hard as they try to distort things it doesn’t amount to anything close to a “crime”.
This report was nothing but politics. I really don’t believe the left understand what will happen if they remove PDJT from office over this. They think civil war isn’t even contemplated.
Most likely this’ll end up going away but they’ll endlessly talk about the “history of PDJT’s crimes”, smear him until the end of time.
This isn’t going to get resolved before the next election. Then Trump will win again and it’ll be pointless.
These people are so full of hate I believe they’ve become demonic. Seriously. They’ve become mentally ill - there’s just not enough of them now, so many have seen through the lies. There is enough to continue the clown show though.
Yada, yada. They can’t even come up with any hint of a crime.
Trump is not going anywhere.
Someone please tell me what crimes Trump allegedly committed. Many thanks.
Is that what they are going to put on the impeachment referral?
In its 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, the Warren Court assayed to obliterate the right of politicians who do not go along and get along with the Journalism Establishment to sue for libel. They were so enthusiastic it was a 9-0 decision with two enthusiastic concurrences. The court held that politicians and judges suing for libel basically amounts to censorship of the press. There are gaping holes in that logic:None of which was before the Court in the Sullivan case.
- the right to sue for libel is in the Constitution much more clearly than the “right” to abortion is. This is so because
- the Bill of Rights unambiguously did not intend to modify the rights of the people. The BoR was enacted strictly to establish the principle that the federal government has no right to do that. That is stated outright in the Ninth Amendment, is stated in the Second Amendment - and,
- the wording of the First Amendment was crafted not to change the laws against libel or pornography. It does not speak simply of “freedom of . . . the press”; rather it speaks of "the freedom . . . of the press.” The freedom of the press was the existing freedom of the press - not absolute freedom but freedom within accepted limits. Not freedom to print pornography, and not freedom to libel anyone. It should be obvious that a First Amendment which abolished the right to seek redress for libel would have been controversial, and might not have been ratified.
- So, the right to redress for libel was recognized when the BoR was written and adopted - and constitutes a clear case of an unenumerated right of the people. And even government officials are people. Not only are they people who have a right to their reputations as they have earned them, but since their reputations reflect well - or ill - on their adherents, the adherents of political figures have a right to have the reputations of such figures reflect their actual characters rather than a traduced version thereof. Scope for libeling public figures is scope for evading the questions such figures might raise by means of ad hominem attacks.
- The reality of “the media” was then, and is now, that the wire services have homogenized journalism. The AP “wire,” for example, is a virtual meeting of the preponderance of journalism outlets. That “meeting” has been ongoing unceasingly since before the Civil War. "People of the same trade,” Adam Smith asserted, “seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
- What “conspiracy against the public” has resulted from it? What else would you expect from journalists conspiring against the public but a massive, self-serving, propaganda campaign? Journalism collectively needs to be believed and thought reliable and important. Accordingly all journalists can be enthusiastic about the slogan, “All journalists are objective.” For journalism as a whole, the slogan is patently self-serving - and patently absurd. In reality, journalism is systematically negative. “No news is good news” because good news “isn’t news.”
- Since journalists know that journalism is negative, the claim that “journalism is objective” amounts to a claim that “negativity is objectivity. And you show me someone who believes that, and I’ll show you a cynic. But the interesting thing about cynicism is that if you are cynical about “A,” and “B” is the opposite of “A,” then cynicism towards “B” is completely incoherent. To be cynical about “A” is thus to be naive about “B.”
- The reality is that journalism is cynical about society, and consequently naive about government (which, per Thomas Paine legitimately, exists only to limit evil in society). The true definition of “socialism,” IMHO, is exactly "the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government.”
- The Democrat Party has no principle inconsistent with simply going along and getting along with journalism. In consequence Democrats never get libeled, and Republicans routinely are libeled.
And those are his good attributes.
No. Hillary committed crimes. Hundreds of them over 30 years.
No matter... What the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats can’t find to charge DJT with, they’ll make up. They’ve got the man now to make up the crime to charge him with....
They will, at least enough to have half of the country believe fully that it is true.
They keep saying this not NOT ONCE has there been ANY Specific Charge or Facts and Evidence to support anything.
Dear Democrats,
Our duly elected President has not committed crimes, and you know that.
Your actions show the rest of us the depths to which you’ll all sink to gain more power.
In your haste to condemn President Trump with absolutely no evidence, 70 million of your fellow citizens see what you’d also do to them.
I’m not going to play that game, and I’m not going to give you the opportunity to get that far. Last century we took care of business on other continents - we can do the same on this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.