Ben Sasse, Susan Collins Warn Trump About Firing Jeff Sessions

I appreciate your reasoned response.

We have had 70 years of Leftist encroachment. Reagan tried, but he could really undo Leftist encroachment in his day. Bush wasn’t one of us and then Clinton and Obama came along to do vast harm to this nations psyche, military, values, and institutions.

Bush was more or less a widget, place in power to kill time until the next Leftist took over.

Now we have Trump and both parts of Congress in our party. We have no idea how long that will last.

There is no Donald Trump II on the horizon. (this disregards his son, but you know what I mean, politically)

For this reason, we have to maximize our eight years, if we should be so lucky.

I know it’s only nearing September and we have four months to go this year, but knowing how little is done during these four months of general election years, half of Trump’s first term is essentially over.

We have seen what comes of the hunker down mentality/strategy. Bush the elder and Bush his son both used it. Look where that led us. Slap whatever guild you want on this stand down policy of Trump/Sessions, it’s another hunker down mentality.

If Trump, Sessions, and even possibly Rosenstein have something up their sleeve, they may be able to redeem themselves. If not, we are heading toward total catastrophe, as this final last chance passes us by.

After January 20th, 2021, we’re done. We’ll be back to men with less acuity, less ability, and less drive.

The media will swamp them. The deep state will coalesce in force. Every aspect of Trump’s progress will be undone ASAP. Congress isn’t going to stay in our court forever.

We have no idea what shenanigans will take place in November. The Left that has seen no push-back whatsoever legally, is in a position to do anything it likes.

It has judges, the FBI, and for lack of any action, Attorney General Jeff Sessions in it’s back pocket.

Bill Clinton was known in 1991 to be a disgusting drug snorting, man of no character, and rapist. The list of things that took place by him and under him were legendary it was so bad.

Then Bush came along and instituted the exact policy you are advocating now? How did that turn out for us? Obama came along and every decent thing Bush did, not that all he did was decent, but Obama crushed it. His judges alone today are killing us. They delay Trump ever step of the way.

Hillary, Huma, Weiner, Mueller, these are people that an indictment would send a clear message throughout the Leftist ranks around the world. Their connections equally as bad would be next. Any connection to them would be next.

It has to start. We’re talking years of action that needs to take place. 1/4th of Trump’s tenure is nearly over, and we’re not making permanent inroads into the Leftist anti-US swamp.

As I said, if Trump, Sessions, and possible Rosenstein have something going on, then I’ll be happy to recant my anti-Sessions rhetoric.

All I am advocating is what must take place.

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy. If not us who? If not now when?

I’ll answer that. If not us nobody If not now, never.

I am far more optimistic than that. And rest assured, I definitely don’t want Trump to bend over and take it like GWB! I want Trump to fight back with all he’s got and win - that’s what I love about him. He fights. He wins.

I want the swamp drained as badly as you do. I don’t know why you keep suggesting I want to hunker down like a Bush and not fight. I am talking about a rope-a-dope strategy. Ali used it - to WIN.

Here’s what I see as Trump’s (our) path to victory.

Trump has had to navigate some very dangerous reefs, but he has been very deft at fending off the Left’s attempts at character assassination. Time is on his side now because the American people are getting to know him.

They are seeing none of the horrible outcomes predicted by the Left. He’s not a white supremacist. He isn’t starting WW3. He didn’t ruin the Republican Party - he has made it stronger. Some good things are happening. Nothing bad is happening because of Donald Trump.

The Left’s time for character assassination is fast running out because everyone can see for themselves what he is, and what he’s not.

So when Trump carries the Republican Party safely through the midterms (which is typically won by the opposition party) he will have consolidated his political power immeasurably within his own party. They will see that he is not a liability as they feared, but a strong asset.

Trump began draining the swamp the minute he passed 269 electoral college votes. Thousands of corrupt pay-to-play schemes between corporate lobbyists and bought-and-paid-for lawmakers in DC came to a screeching halt the day Trump won. Why? Because all of that corporate money being spent on bribes to pass favorable regulatory legislation is wasted if there’s no Hillary Clinton in the White House to sign it. Trump is owned by nobody - the crony capitalism that makes up half of the DC swamp was dealt a crippling blow over night. Then, upon taking office Trump has unleashed holy hell on the corrupt regulatory machinery that drives the deep state bureaucracy. Deregulation is happening under Trump at a staggering pace. The deep state is still there and still corrupt, but their schemes and rackets have been eviscerated - they are mostly in CYA mode now. Many of them will go away by attrition as they are deprived of the kickbacks they once received from corporate lobbyists and cronies.

A lot of swamp draining is happening despite the lack of prosecutions and jail sentences. You can kill pests with poison but you can also get rid of them by destroying their habitat and food source.

There is part of me that gets furious with the blatant double standard and the two-tiered justice system - I really want to see HRC and other high level Obama co-conspirators lined up and shot - I would even like to pull the trigger sometimes.

But I think there aren’t near enough of us that want firing squads and jail time for ex politicians. Most voters would be satisfied just to fire them or vote them out of office. If you could convict them of something financial like tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement, etc. then yes, I think you’d have public support. But anything political - most people would just want them gone. If one party punishes the other party - people worry that it’s just political retribution.

So if Trump asked his DOJ to jail Obama officials (mostly Democrats) for political crimes - that could turn the public against Trump if they saw him as a vindictive son of a bitch that throws his weight around and sends his political enemies to jail - there’s a good chance they would turn against him and we’d never get to see what good things he could have accomplished in his 8 years.

By the way, I think Trump will serve 8 years and then Pence has a good shot at another 8. I think Pence is a good solid conservative.

One thing I think a couple things about Trump are different 1) nobody owns him. 2) he speaks the unvarnished truth and 3) the America First doctrine plays VERY well with the American people. Trump is making the Democrats look like jackasses every day.

There is no way Pence will withstand the media and Leftists.

He hasn’t got it in him. At best he’ll be another Bush.

You’re dreaming your way through another stand in place moment.

As I said, these folks will simply walk in after Trump and spend two years truly undoing everything Trump accomplished.

If you don’t get rid of these pests, they’ll multiply.

Haven’t you see this cycle long enough to know I’m right?

You’re advocating another GW Term here.

“Oh Trump is winning, really really winning!”

What swamp creatures are gone?

Deep state means just that, and we haven’t even touche the top level state yet.

Bud, you just kidding yourself, and backing Trump to turn into another failed president with that attitude.

You DO NOT win by playing defense.

Ok, you are too set in your ways to reason with

Passivity didn’t work under Bush did it.

Because his DOJ didn’t go after Clinton, she was able to almost run a successful campaign to be president?

Don’t you get that?

How many of these deep state folks are waiting line for their turn to do the same thing, and here we are allowing them to position themselves to do just that? We should be taking down their complete lineup. Instead we do nothing.

I’m too set in my ways? LOL Bud, I give you examples and you agree and then go right on with your own vision.

The only problem is, it’s GW’s vision.

It’s like the Leftists claiming that if only Communism is done right it will work next time. No it wont’.

And what you are advocating won’t either.

Why do we lock up felons? It’s to protect the public by preventing the same crimes being committed over and over.

Why should we lock Hillary up? It’s to protect the public by preventing the same crimes being committed over and over.

It’s to prevent new crimes from being committed by her, and her staff, and the whole Leftist cabal.

This is so elemental, and yet you dismiss it completely, then tell me I’m the one set in my ways even though you admit what I am telling you makes sense.

You tell me you don’t want to advocate what Bush did, but that is exactly what you are doing.

Why can’t you see that?

OK, here are some harsh political realities - you might not like them, but please read them before telling me I’m wrong.

Trump barely squeaked by in 2016 with a victory, mostly because Clinton was a trainwreck of a candidate and Trump knew how to capitalize on her weaknesses.

Worse yet, of the approximately 50% that voted for Trump, only about 10% (or fewer) are like you and I, immune to MSM propaganda. It is only this 10% that sees the battle lines drawn the way you and I do - only we see the threat from the Left, - the way they have monopolized the deep state bureaucracy, the universities, Hollywood, the media. Only this small fraction of the voting public is aware of the corruption and the stark double standard in our justice system.

To the other 90% of voters, the talk of corruption is unconvincing - it sounds to them like conspiracy theories - each side pointing the finger at the other - and they do not know who to believe. The 40% that voted for Trump did so for other reasons - not the corruption. Some habitually vote Republican, others liked his position on border security, jobs, ISIS or something else.

What I’m trying to say is that in order to keep the White House and control of the legislature, Trump absolutely needs that 40% just as badly as he needs our 10%. It has to add up to 50%.

If Trump mobilizes his AG and DOJ to prosecute and punish the corrupt Obama era co-conspirators for treason - it’s only that 10% (perhaps far fewer) of voters like you and I that will agree that they deserve life in prison or perhaps to be hanged.

What will the other 90% think of that?

Well, the 50% who voted for Clinton will be mad as hornets. What about the 40% of voters who voted for Trump, but are not convinced that deep state corruption even exists? They may not be mad as hornets, but they will have serious doubts when it comes to long prison sentences or capital punishment.

They will be very susceptible to the 24/7 Leftist propaganda campaign that will be designed to play on those doubts, and cause them to question whether Trump is truly meting out justice, or whether he is on a political witch hunt, purging the government of anyone who disagrees with him.

You can disagree with my 10% - maybe it’s more, maybe it’s less - but if Trump were to pursue that course, he would not be able to drum up anywhere near 50% who would approve. And he needs 50%.

In order to further his agenda he needs to remain in office, and in order to remain in office, he has to appeal to voting blocks that simply do not share our zeal about punishing deep state corruption. There are just not enough of us - not even close.

So if Trump reads the political landscape as I think he does, you will see him looking for other ways to root out the corruption - but he’ll avoid the specter of public hangings and life incarcerations. Hillary Clinton will not go to jail. Obama will not go to jail. Maybe some flunkies will get locked up for embezzlement or money laundering or tax evasion. Nobody will be hanged. Not enough of the American public would have the stomach for it.

That’s just the way it is - I’m sorry.

It doesn’t mean I don’t see the corruption or that I don’t think they deserve to hang - I do. But it’s not going to happen.

I think you will be surprised what Trump can accomplish by changing public perception, destroying political correctness, discrediting the fake news, and exposing deep state corruption by talking directly to the people.

The corrupt deep state co-conspirators may not see jail time, but they will be branded as traitors, banished from public service, and the Democrat Party will be tarnished and disgraced for generations to come.

Trump is an amazing problem solver - he can do a lot of damage.

LOL

You are really lost in space there.

Ignore reality all you like Bush.

What’s with the mood swings, DO?

One minute you are rational and civil; the next, you are rude and unaccountable, resorting to dismissiveness and name-calling.

The next time the rational one is in the room, please tell me which part of my good faith political analysis you disagree with. But if you are just going to call me names, don’t bother.

To reiterate, my argument is that only < 10% of the electorate, the most avid of Trump supporters, would cheer if the President convicted his political opposition (HRC and other top level Obama era co-conspirators) of high treason, and then meted out the just punishment, namely very long prison sentences and/or death.

I am saying that the other >90% of voters, including the other >40% who voted for Trump, would not cheer - they are not convinced of the Left’s decades long corruption and subversion in the same way we are.

They see two sides accusing one another of corruption, and they dismiss it all as political rhetoric and conspiracy theory. When push comes to shove, these voters will simply not go along with Trump convicting ex Obama officials of treason, and meting out the harsh sentences those convictions would carry. Even many who had voted for Trump would soon be turned against him, believing the Left’s non-stop narrative that Trump was a tyrant for using his DOJ to wipe out his political opposition.

So, what part of that argument do you disagree with? Do you think more than 10% would support such convictions and sentencing? 20%?, 30%?.

Do you really think 50% of the electorate would stand with Trump through such a purge? Because if not, he will lose everything - he needs at least 50% to carry on.

If Trump went through with the purge and lost his bid for reelection because of it, do you think it would be worth it? If the punishment was life imprisonment, would not the next Democrat President pardon them all?

Even if they were hanged, I fear there would always be an endless supply of corrupt Leftists to take their place, especially since those hanged would become martyrs.

OK, here are some harsh political realities - you might not like them, but please read them before telling me I’m wrong.

Well, I didn't read your post the first time I responded, and it's a good thing I didn't. What a bunch of sophomoric prattle.

Trump barely squeaked by in 2016 with a victory, mostly because Clinton was a trainwreck of a candidate and Trump knew how to capitalize on her weaknesses.

Yeah, of course Trump's actual platform and seemingly endless rallies to explain them to the American public had nothing to do with that. It was just Hillary that screwed up so bad, that Trump was able to win. He didn't present anything that the American public could buy into. He didn't tell her she should be in prison at his debate. Why if he had done that, he would have scared off 90% of his base. To hear you tell it, that's exactly what should have happened. Did it?

Worse yet, of the approximately 50% that voted for Trump, only about 10% (or fewer) are like you and I, immune to MSM propaganda. It is only this 10% that sees the battle lines drawn the way you and I do - only we see the threat from the Left, - the way they have monopolized the deep state bureaucracy, the universities, Hollywood, the media. Only this small fraction of the voting public is aware of the corruption and the stark double standard in our justice system.

Do you realize you laid out that only 10% of Trump's supporters would still have voted for him if he had planned on prosecuting Hillary? That means that you think all of Hillary's voters would have voted for her, and 90% of Trump's voters would have too.

To the other 90% of voters, the talk of corruption is unconvincing - it sounds to them like conspiracy theories - each side pointing the finger at the other - and they do not know who to believe. The 40% that voted for Trump did so for other reasons - not the corruption. Some habitually vote Republican, others liked his position on border security, jobs, ISIS or something else.

What I’m trying to say is that in order to keep the White House and control of the legislature, Trump absolutely needs that 40% just as badly as he needs our 10%. It has to add up to 50%.

Your are so lost in space. Trump retorted to Clinton, "Yeah, because you'd be in prison!" You evidently don't recall that. How many of his supporters did he lose? Strangely enough, he won. History does not prove you to be right. It proves you to be headed 180 degrees in the wrong direction on this train of thought.

If Trump mobilizes his AG and DOJ to prosecute and punish the corrupt Obama era co-conspirators for treason - it’s only that 10% (perhaps far fewer) of voters like you and I that will agree that they deserve life in prison or perhaps to be hanged.

What will the other 90% think of that?

The U. S. Code regarding top secret information information was violated by Hillary Clinton. All a person has to do is read or listen to what it says, then hear what Hillary Clinton did, and then be presented with the fact that foreign entities tapped into her home server. It's an open and shut case.

Well, the 50% who voted for Clinton will be mad as hornets. What about the 40% (honest mistake, but you said only 10% of Trump's supporters would have stuck with him, so this 40% should be 90% to be accurate) of voters who voted for Trump, but are not convinced that deep state corruption even exists? They may not be mad as hornets, but they will have serious doubts when it comes to long prison sentences or capital punishment.

I haven't called for capital punishment. I don't think this is a capital punishment case. It is a Leavenworth prison case. Nice try.

They will be very susceptible to the 24/7 Leftist propaganda campaign that will be designed to play on those doubts, and cause them to question whether Trump is truly meting out justice, or whether he is on a political witch hunt, purging the government of anyone who disagrees with him.

In other words you're saying that this would be the proverbial straw that would finally take Trump down. Good grief, you can't help yourself. This is precisely the type of argument the Leftist media used for over a year to take Trump down. "Oh, he's gone and done it now! This will do it!" No, it won't.

Political figures are prosecuted not all that rarely. They are convicted. They do time in prison. We have a legal code in this nation, and Hillary Clinton violated it. Rod Blogovitch was convicted in Chicago of all places. Remember?

You can disagree with my 10% - maybe it’s more, maybe it’s less - but if Trump were to pursue that course, he would not be able to drum up anywhere near 50% who would approve. And he needs 50%.

That is such utter nonsense, even you must wince at the idea you actually tossed that on the forum. Trump as much as stated that Hillary Clinton was a crook, and should be in prison in one of the debates. He said things like that on the campaign trail. It actually garnered him votes. Where the hell were you when all this was happening?

In order to further his agenda he needs to remain in office, and in order to remain in office, he has to appeal to voting blocks that simply do not share our zeal about punishing deep state corruption. There are just not enough of us - not even close.

You really are a spineless bucket of whimpering flesh aren't you.

Trump inferred Hillary Clinton was a crook that should be locked up in prison, and he won the election. If his attorney general had met the Magnificent Oz he would have a brain and possibly even the courage to prosecute her. And what would this have done? This would have proved Trump right. There you are claiming that it would have cost him 90% of his base. That's nothing if not one of the most comical ideas posted to this forum. It flies in the face of reality on several levels.

So if Trump reads the political landscape as I think he does, you will see him looking for other ways to root out the corruption - but he’ll avoid the specter of public hangings and life incarcerations. Hillary Clinton will not go to jail. Obama will not go to jail. Maybe some flunkies will get locked up for embezzlement or money laundering or tax evasion. Nobody will be hanged. Not enough of the American public would have the stomach for it.

You keep tossing out that "hanged" comment as if it is real. What utter nonsense. You're flailing to make an argument here, and so you've tossed in everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to sound reasoned. By doing so, you've made yourself sound idiotic. Of course Hillary wouldn't be hanged. What she did was not a capital offense. You evidently don't know that, but you're just convinced without a shadow of a doubt that Trump would have lost the election if folks thought he would prosecute her. And yet, that's exactly how he made it sound in that debate. You are delusional.

That’s just the way it is - I’m sorry.

It's not the way it is, and you should be sorry. Trump telegraphed that there was a good chance he would prosecute Hillary, and he won. Somehow you missed that. Somehow you thought you had a great line of reasoning here based on a false premise. Somehow down deep inside, you know I'm right too. He didn't stop at Hillary. He talked a lot about the corruption taking place in our nation. You didn't know that either? Seriously? Where were you in 2015 and 2016?

It doesn’t mean I don’t see the corruption or that I don’t think they deserve to hang - I do. But it’s not going to happen.

There you go again.

Once again for the brain dead, if we don't weed out the corruption, put people in prison, and make it clear this sort of thing cannot happen again, it will happen again, only worse.

We now have Leftists openly stating that we need to do away with the U. S. Constitution. We have them saying we should do away with the presidency. Rush makes the case that they want to do away with elections, since they have claimed and are trying to convinced people that the election system has been hacked by Russia and is no longer valid. In California and even other places today, we have illegal aliens voting. Each election we know that the dead are voting. We know that people are bussed in from out of state to vote. Some Leftists brag that they voted multiple times, and at least one guy was caught doing so.

Why can't you see that all this needs to be confronted and stopped? Why can't you see that we must confront evil to end evil?

Hillary Clinton herself is the poster girl for my claim that if we don't put these people in prison, they will continue to do things that are exponentially worse. If Bush had gone after her, he would have prevented her from being in politics any longer. By taking that pass, he enabled her to run for the presidency later on. She came within a whisker of winning the election, and here you are missing one of the best object lessons in history. Hillary Clinton would have destroyed this nation. She came very close to winning the 2016 election, and here you are advocated we let scores of people known to have broken laws, to continue plying their trade. What utter nonsense...

I think you will be surprised what Trump can accomplish by changing public perception, destroying political correctness, discrediting the fake news, and exposing deep state corruption by talking directly to the people.

He did talk directly to the people in the debates. He inferred that Hillary Clinton was a crook and should be in prison. You are off your rocker if you think any of the folks who voted for him disagreed with that. Be honest with yourself, for the first time on this thread. You know I'm right here.

The corrupt deep state co-conspirators may not see jail time, but they will be branded as traitors, banished from public service, and the Democrat Party will be tarnished and disgraced for generations to come.

Karl Rove, is this you? Was Hillary Clinton tarnished under the Bush administration, branded as a traitor, her name disgraced, the Democrat party disgraced for generations to come? No! Now here you are pleading for me to see (what you seem to think is) the light of day, and buy into treating her the same way the Bush Administration did. What the hell is wrong with you? That didn't work then. It won't work now! Only by outing the corruption can we prevent another Obama or Hillary Clinton type figure from hoodwinking the nation.

Trump is an amazing problem solver - he can do a lot of damage.

With the right attorney general, I agree. We can once and for all convict Leftists in a court of law to reveal how corrupt they are.

Convicting scores of them for all the crimes they have been involved in, will tell the populace that this type of open sedition is wrong.

It will prevent those scores of people from running for higher office. It will prevent them for being in positions of power to undo what Trump has corrected. It will make it easier to make our case when it comes to the smut the Left is forcing off on our very young children. It would open folks eyes to many things that are going on. Folks don't buy into it now, because they haven't seen anyone go to prison. They think this is all political talk, and why shouldn't they? Nothing is ever done. For the first time in a long time we need to put on our big-boy pants, hitch them up, and get to work.

In the case of George Soros, with he proper investigation, I believe it will revealed he is an organized crime figure. If that is true, it would stop him from using his funds domestically and globally to commit many federal level infractions.

Well known public political figures are convicted around the planet, for the crimes they have committed. Ex-leaders of other nations and high up political figures have been convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison. Why is it that you think our nation is too back-woodsy, or inept to conduct trials and present the evidence necessary to convict corrupt people? Why is it that you think we don't have a populace that can grasp the truth?

By your line of reasoning, we should close up the Department of Justice, the FBI, local courts, furlough judges and police officers at all levels. Why it's just too much to think U. S. Citizens could hear evidence and convict anyone these days.

What a useless, baseless, and corrupt way of thinking.

This is a law and order forum. I'm not sure how you took a Left turn and fell into it.

When I make my case and a person agrees with it, but still demands I buy into their nonsense, there’s really nothing more to do than peg them for what they have become.

If you don’t like being called a nincompoop for example, don’t act like one.

You admit there is corruption on the Left. You tell me you wish those folks could see justice served. Then you run right back to the Karl Rove mantra, and wrap yourself in it.

We are a nation of laws, and if the citizenry is to respect our government, our laws must be enforced at all levels.

What you advocate for would destroy any respect for our government.

That type of thinking cannot prevail, because we either enforce our laws, or our nation will not prevail.

Sasse and Collins must not realize that the President can hire or fire anyone he choses in the Executive branch.

Oh, they do realize this fact?

Put a sock in it Sasse and Collins.

5.56mm

“I haven’t called for capital punishment. I don’t think this is a capital punishment case. It is a Leavenworth prison case.”

It’s good to know that you rule out capital punishment. Knowing that puts us one step closer to agreeing.

A few more rational responses like that one, and we could have had a civil and informative conversation, and perhaps come to understand one another’s positions.

But instead you chose to get nasty. Go take a pill - I’m done with you.

I’m sorry you have an inability to accept the truth.

Your arguments are deeply flawed. I pointed that out for you.

You tossed out the topic of capital punishment as if anyone else had raised the issue. By inference, you were implying I was in favor of it.

My objection didn’t put us closer together. It simply outed you for using one more flawed tactic.

I understand your position just fine. I handed you your lunch based on it.

Get nasty? I guess that’s how you deal with defeat.

My bad.

You kept stressing that this is a nation of laws, so I assumed you were advocating “full extent of the law” type sentences. I also assumed you meant “nobody is above the law”, so Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be rotting in jail.

But if you are only talking about fines, or brief stays at Club Fed (pending presidential pardon), for a handful of career bureaucrats, maybe we agree after all. I really can’t know what your positions are unless you tell me.

See, this is why it pays to state your positions factually, rather than engaging in a bunch of name-calling!

Why would I not expect the full extent of the law to be implemented here?

The full extent of the law, addresses the infractions that were committed, and the legal fines and or sentences that were prescribed if someone were convicted of them.

There would be no need for me to address capital punishment, because capital punishment is not one of the penalties for what Clinton did.

I doubt seriously it’s prescribed by anything Obama did.

Giving arms and funding to terrorists, should be illegal. Them then toppling an ally’s government, and the arms being used to kill our ambassador and his staff should be cause for concern and possible criminal infractions. If not, fine.

If Obama can be found to have broken the law, and I’m pretty sure I’ve read of things that certainly pointed me in that direction, then I want him brought up on charges and convicted.

For starters, I do not think he is a citizen. I think he defrauded the United States and it’s citizens.

Some federal law enforcement agency should review his college records and find out if he filed as a foreign student to get financial aid. They should review if he ever renounced his citizenship to attend school in Malaysia.

Other things should be looked at.

Clinton is exposed. We know of things she did. She needs to be brought up on charges. She knowingly mishandled top secret classified information, and it’s known that foreign powers gained access to it as a result.

I’m not sure how you could have read what I wrote to you on this thread, and not come up with these concepts.

“I’m not sure how you could have read what I wrote to you on this thread, and not come up with these concepts.”

All I know is that this last post of yours is filled with facts snd specifics examples, and I find it much easier to understand where you are coming from, and respond with follow up questions, etc..

If you and I ever debate something again, I hope we start out with a post like this last one.

Regarding the subject at hand, I think your approach to investigating corruption and criminality would be fine for Trump’s AG and DOJ to pursue.

If I understand it correctly, you seem to be saying all activities should be looked at on their surface to see whether crimes may have been committed. If so, follow the evidence wherever it leads, but only according to due process. Nobody should be above the law. The punishment should fit the crime. All good axioms.

Some things that come to mind that I think Trump should avoid:

Targeting the political opposition. Investigating a target and looking for a crime. This is what Mueller and whoever he is working for are doing to Trump and Trump associates. He’s not starting with a crime and following evidence, he’s not using due process - he’s on an endless political witch hunt - targeting a suspect and looking for a crime - and he won’t stop until he finds one.

What Mueller is doing is wrong. It would be tempting to retaliate - Trump should avoid retaliation and make sure his underlings avoid it. Retaliation is by definition targeting. Instead, identify potential crimes and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Do not pick suspected targets and look for crimes. That’s backwards.

In a sense, a lot of conversations about this on FR start off on the wrong foot. We have our list of targets (basically the entire Obama administration. This gives the appearance of targeting suspects and looking for a crime - this is wrong.

The correct way to go about it in my opinion is to go back for example to the point where the investigation into HRC improper use of email case got dropped and if it got prematurely dropped, then pick it up again - follow the evidence - not HRC. If it leads to HRC or somebody else or leads nowhere, then so be it.

I think it is extremely important that the American people see the Justice system operate fairly and impartially under Donald Trump, especially after Obama administration abused it.

Trump and his supporters have to do some real soul searching and ask ourselves whether our motive is true Justice, or revenge for what the Left has done to us. If our motives are pure, that will come through and the American people will respect and support it.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes my motives are impure. Sometimes I’m just angry and want to see some top Lefties’ heads on pikes. We shouldn’t act like a lynch mob and Trump shouldn’t endorse or lead any kind of lynch mob.

I notice whenever the crowds start chanting “lock her up” at rallies, Trump never joins in. He joins in with “build the wall”, “drill baby drill” and “USA “ but never “lock her up” - this is because he realizes it’s the wrong approach to justice. It’s exactly backwards. You investigate a crime and follow the evidence to find a suspect, not the other way around.

Anyway, if it’s done with pure motives and impartially, I think it’s a good idea for Trump to pursue justice wherever the evidence leads, and I think he will.

I think that this won’t be enough for some of the more zealous supporters - they’ll always want more indictments, stiffer punishments and they’ll be looking to “even the score”. I hope Trump continues to ignore this faction.

I’m not sure how you could have read what I wrote to you on this thread, and not come up with these concepts.

All I know is that this last post of yours is filled with facts snd specifics examples, and I find it much easier to understand where you are coming from, and respond with follow up questions, etc.

In general terms, I shouldn't have to explain some things to you. We are both on a Conservative forum and certain communal thoughts here should be accepted as something we agree on.

Urging we abide by the law, enforce the law, and hold EVERYONE accountable should be a given. Do I really need to give you examples after saying something like this?

Should I have to explain that I mean we should simply apply the law where we have evidence of a crime? Should I have to explain I want the person to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

Should I have to explain that I don't want them mistreated legally? You should know that up front. I never suggested anyone be treated unfairly. I only asked that our laws be enforced. NOW!

If you and I ever debate something again, I hope we start out with a post like this last one.

This is how it started out here. These were your comments. LINK These were my comments in rebuttal. LINK

Honestly, I wouldn't change a word in my first post to you.

Regarding the subject at hand, I think your approach to investigating corruption and criminality would be fine for Trump’s AG and DOJ to pursue.

As do I, so why didn't you accept that I had good intentions in mind with my first response to you? I advocated nothing here that I hadn't there.

If I understand it correctly, you seem to be saying all activities should be looked at on their surface to see whether crimes may have been committed. If so, follow the evidence wherever it leads, but only according to due process. Nobody should be above the law. The punishment should fit the crime. All good axioms.

Look, I appreciate your nice comments here, really I do, but where did you come up with the idea I was advocating anything different than this anywhere on this thread?

Some things that come to mind that I think Trump should avoid:

Targeting the political opposition. Investigating a target and looking for a crime. This is what Mueller and whoever he is working for are doing to Trump and Trump associates. He’s not starting with a crime and following evidence, he’s not using due process - he’s on an endless political witch hunt - targeting a suspect and looking for a crime - and he won’t stop until he finds one.

I have not advocated Trump attack his political opposition. I have continued to maintain that there are known crimes that have been committed, and that the individuals who committed them should be brought to justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should have ongoing investigations of these people, indict them were warranted, prosecute them, and if found guilty, incarcerate them. Why should I have to spell this out for you? Are you under some mistaken impression you're the only one who wants to see true justice done here? As for his political opposition, even they should stand before the court if they have committed crimes. Hillary Clinton is exposed for setting up a private server to handle secret information, placing secret information on it, disbursing that information to another person without a security clearance, that person then having classified information they were not entitled to have, that person not reporting it, that information then existing at a separate unsecured location, and then a husband having access to that information. I mentioned this to you specifically. After having done so, you didn't address it acknowledging all this needed to be addressed.

What Mueller is doing is wrong. It would be tempting to retaliate - Trump should avoid retaliation and make sure his underlings avoid it. Retaliation is by definition targeting. Instead, identify potential crimes and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Do not pick suspected targets and look for crimes. That’s backwards.

This is exactly what I addressed when I mentioned Muller using a known falsified document to obtain FISA warrants. That is a crime. When it surfaced that he had used falsified documents, I mentioned that the judge had an obligation to address the criminality here, and took a pass. This implicated the judge in being complicit, if in no other way than allowing a crime to go unaddressed that took place in her presence, and that had defrauded the court.

Your admonition here to only go where the crimes are is insulting, and should be beneath you. I never advocated for going hunting for crimes. There are plenty on the surface in the FBI and perhaps some in the Department of Justice itself.

In a sense, a lot of conversations about this on FR start off on the wrong foot. We have our list of targets (basically the entire Obama administration. This gives the appearance of targeting suspects and looking for a crime - this is wrong.

Please stick to the topic, and show me one place on this thread where I advocated "looking for crimes". I have spoken about specific instances of crimes that we are all aware of. Hillary's server, her mishandling of classified information, her foundation where she was soliciting massive donations from foreign sources until the election, and then the spigot turned off in about 24 hours. Funds designated for Haiti should be reviewed. What happened to them? Why should I have to spell this stuff out for you? Every person or organization that took part in the creation of the Steele Document, should be investigated and prosecuted for not coming forward and explaining that it was a political opposition research document, totally a fabrication from the word go.

The correct way to go about it in my opinion is to go back for example to the point where the investigation into HRC improper use of email case got dropped and if it got prematurely dropped, then pick it up again - follow the evidence - not HRC. If it leads to HRC or somebody else or leads nowhere, then so be it.

You know, I am sure glad you are suggesting exactly what I have been since my first post to you. This didn't dawn on you from my first post? What a colossal waste of time this thread has been for both of us.

I think it is extremely important that the American people see the Justice system operate fairly and impartially under Donald Trump, especially after Obama administration abused it.

This is simply one more statement that echoes what I have been trying to tell you all along. Why did it take you this long to come up to speed?

Trump and his supporters have to do some real soul searching and ask ourselves whether our motive is true Justice, or revenge for what the Left has done to us. If our motives are pure, that will come through and the American people will respect and support it.

Bud, maybe you need to search your soul, but my soul is clean as a whistle on this. I have not advocated for anything other than the Justice Department doing it's job. I have never suggested Jeff Sessions should do anything other than his job.

It's really startling to see you make comments like this. It's just now dawning on you what I've been advocating all along. And it is diametrically opposed to what you stated in post 34. That is why I challenged you.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes my motives are impure. Sometimes I’m just angry and want to see some top Lefties’ heads on pikes. We shouldn’t act like a lynch mob and Trump shouldn’t endorse or lead any kind of lynch mob.

I have to gage my comments by what is reasoned, what is legal, and what is glaringly not happening when it should be. Sure I'm angry. I'm angry because it's clear as day that we need to take action, and this far into the Trump first term, NOTHING is being done. So yes I have gaged my comments as I needed to, and I have advocated for what needs to take place. This is why I said we cannot give the Clintons another pass. We must follow the crimes and take legal action. Why should I have to explain this to you. We are supposed to be on the same team. You should know this without me having to assure you. You assumed the worst evidently, and then had to be led back to reality so you could agree. Why?

I notice whenever the crowds start chanting “lock her up” at rallies, Trump never joins in. He joins in with “build the wall”, “drill baby drill” and “USA “ but never “lock her up” - this is because he realizes it’s the wrong approach to justice. It’s exactly backwards. You investigate a crime and follow the evidence to find a suspect, not the other way around.

He does not want to prejudice a case Hillary might be involved in. That's all. It would be highly improper for him after being elected, to then trash talk Clinton when a case or cases could very likely be filed against her. That's all there is to that.

Anyway, if it’s done with pure motives and impartially, I think it’s a good idea for Trump to pursue justice wherever the evidence leads, and I think he will.

Then we have agreed all along, with the only stipulation being that it must be started soon. This dilly dallying routine is far to mature by this point to be sustained longer.

I think that this won’t be enough for some of the more zealous supporters - they’ll always want more indictments, stiffer punishments and they’ll be looking to “even the score”. I hope Trump continues to ignore this faction.

You know, you really do need to get over what everyone else is thinking, and think more about solid policy from your own perspective. Addressing what you think they are thinking is not serving you well. You spent almost this total thread convinced you knew what I really meant, when I specifically spelled out for you what I meant.

You seem so obsessed with proving yourself right and me wrong, that you are missing a large grey area that merits debate.

Your entire argument is based on a false dichotomy between:

A) enforcing the laws, and applying strict punishments, thus ridding ourselves of deep state criminals once and for all, vs.

B) letting them get away with a slap on the wrist, only to have them return to power the next Leftist administration.

Yet, due to the presidential pardon, they can return to power regardless of how strictly you enforce the law, assuming no death penalty.

I am pointing out that because of the presidential pardon there can be no lasting legal solution - a lasting solution must include a cultural shift - winning hearts and minds, and busting up media and educational monopolies.

These criminals must not only face legal consequences, but also, and perhaps more importantly, they must face social consequences.

I believe Trump is showing us the way toward this discrediting of the Left with his one man war on political correctness and his one man war on the fake news.

I do have a legitimate point here, even though you insist on mocking it as some sort of Karl Rovean appeasement.

Frankly, I don’t care if you see it or don’t see it.

Many others that I’ve spoken to on FR understand and share my concern and I believe Trump shares it too.

You seem so obsessed with proving yourself right and me wrong, that you are missing a large grey area that merits debate.

You're really having a hard time determining what the hell you believe. In your last post you agreed with my original point that lawbreakers should be brought to justice. Now you're off going sideways again. Do you realize that?

Yes, sure I want folks to understand that criminals must be prosecuted. Who knew? Once again, you can't grasp the issues here.

Your entire argument is based on a false dichotomy between:

A) enforcing the laws, and applying strict punishments, thus ridding ourselves of deep state criminals once and for all, vs.

B) letting them get away with a slap on the wrist, only to have them return to power the next Leftist administration.

I have not advocated for anything other than what the law prescribes. I didn't address hand slaps or some sort of draconian measures. This is nothing but nonsense, more noise on the matter and nothing else.

Yet, due to the presidential pardon, they can return to power regardless of how strictly you enforce the law, assuming no death penalty.

Do you have no morals at all? I'm just curious if you can grasp any part of what passes for doing the right thing when it comes to right and wrong. So what if someone is pardoned later on? That person will have been convicted in a court of law, not just on the political stage. Jurors will have listened to evidence and they will have made a decision. A judge will have taken the verdict and set a penalty. They may actually go to prison and have to pay large fines.

Are you capable of understanding why this is important? It is important because our citizens will know one party tries to go by the law and make sure people live according to those laws. Right now today, we have not proved that in over two decades. We have known felons serving in positions of power in this nation. Either they are ensconced in the top levels of our federal law enforcement, or even holding public office. It's important for our kids to know laws are to be followed. It's even more important for citizens to know that the rule of law does still apply, and that we don't go sideways when the lawbreakers are heavy hitters.

Let the Left pardon the convicts. Let the public see it in the sunlight. While I think it would be wrong, it still would drive home which party sides with the law and which is essentially a criminal enterprise.

Do you think our nation's citizens should be able to see very clearly that there is a party that is a criminal enterprise? Well,... evidently not. Wake the hell up!

I am pointing out that because of the presidential pardon there can be no lasting legal solution - a lasting solution must include a cultural shift - winning hearts and minds, and busting up media and educational monopolies.

That comment up to the first dash is pure drivel. Sending Hillary Clinton to prison would have lasting effects on the nation. If she does twenty, five, even two years there, it will have impact as other potential lawbreakers realize their futures won't be so bright if they don't avoid criminal behavior. Who is feeding you this nonsense? As for a lasting solution, no solution whatsoever will take place without law and order. Yes a cultural shift back must take place, but that involves law and order, a respect for our nation's laws, then allowing the people of this nation to bring the media and the education monopolies back into line.

Can't you see the contempt for laws in this nation? Why do you think that is? In no small measure, it's because there is a perception that the are laws for citizens, and then the illegals and our public leaders don't have to comply with those same laws.

There is a feeling of utter contempt out here. We have to prove the citizens wrong.

Who do you propose to loft as people of moral fiber, if our party won't take a moral stand against lawless behavior? Right now both parties are bereft of leaders who will demand people respect the rule of law.

If Hillary can get away with allowing foreign nations to get our top level secrets off her server, what use are laws that demand people comply with our nations security regulations?

Trump can also ask Congress to demand of universities that they get their staff back into some semblance of political balance if they want one more tax dollar. Along with that he can demand that all voices are safe on those campuses.

These criminals must not only face legal consequences, but also, and perhaps more importantly, they must face social consequences.

OMG, you are lost in space. You just stated that there is no lasting legal solution, and now you're saying these criminals must not only face legal consequences (which you just invalidated above), but now you're off on some rant about social consequences? Okay Mr. Abide by the Law, where in your Constitution does it address social consequences? That doesn't make a lick of sense and you know it. Well, you should know it.

I believe Trump is showing us the way toward this discrediting of the Left with his one man war on political correctness and his one man war on the fake news.

Remind me to set the snooze alert. You drop in and out so frequently, it's hard to stay awake.

Remind me again how Trump discrediting the Left precludes the DOJ prosecuting people who have broken serious laws. Honestly, some of this stuff you post is just mind numbingly ill thought out.

I do have a legitimate point here, even though you insist on mocking it as some sort of Karl Rovean appeasement.

I think you're selling yourself short. You have all sorts of points. In one sentence you tell me it would be of no value to prosecute. In the next you tell me we need to prosecute.

For the better part of this thread, you did push the Rovian idea that we shouldn't go after the criminal element in our government. Bush didn't think it was important, and I think Rove was a big driving force in Bush policy.

So the upshot of all that was that Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, and nearly won. No, I have this aversion to allowing her to maintain here stateswoman standing. Take the bitch down.

Frankly, I don’t care if you see it or don’t see it.

Oh I see plenty.

Many others that I’ve spoken to on FR understand and share my concern and I believe Trump shares it too.

You may think you are making sense, but I hate to break it to you, you are one rather confused individual. You can't even agree with yourself for long.

There are many folks here now who think Sessions has ovestayed his welcome. That should come as no shock to you..

I’m not reading a word of this until you get back on your meds.