Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[PeterAit]

It may be his worst. It isn't just the factual errors in it which have been repeatedly debunked. It isn't just the blind allegiance to party over country.

It's sad, really. Anyone who says anything bad about Trump is, in Alan's world, doing it for vile motives.

- When senior military officers speak against him, it's because "they were put up to it" and not because they are honorable patriotic Americans.

- When Cheney and Kinginger serve on the Jan 6th committee, it's because "they hate Trump and want to get even with him" and not because they care about democracy and the truth.

- When the Times and WaPo publish negative articles about Trump it's because "they have always been biased against Trump" and not because they are widely respected newspapers dedicated to publishing accurate information.

[PeterAit]

I'll defer to you, Chris.  But it's not clear how failure to act as president is a Federal offense. 

It's called dereliction of duty, defined as " ... a person's purposeful or accidental failure to perform an obligation without a valid excuse, especially an obligation attached to his or her job." In the military it can be punished by death (in wartime) or by 1 year in the slammer (peacetime). Of course the president is not in the military and those rules do not apply, but his oath of office does require him to "... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Do you think encouraging "demonstrators" to go and disrupt a fully constitutional process and then refusing to call them off meets this oath? Is this criminal from a legal sense? Maybe not, but as has been pointed out to you many times, the committee's purpose is to find out what happened and not to prosecute individuals.

[Alan Klein]

It's sad, really. Anyone who says anything bad about Trump is, in Alan's world, doing it for vile motives.

- When senior military officers speak against him, it's because "they were put up to it" and not because they are honorable patriotic Americans.

- When Cheney and Kinginger serve on the Jan 6th committee, it's because "they hate Trump and want to get even with him" and not because they care about democracy and the truth.

- When the Times and WaPo publish negative articles about Trump it's because "they have always been biased against Trump" and not because they are widely respected newspapers dedicated to publishing accurate information.

Trump is a loud-mouth narcissistic selfish power hungry man.  I wish he'd go away like many Demcorats wanted Hillary to go away.   But I know a kangaroo court when I see it.  There's no attempt to be fair.  It's a political prosecution.

The NY Times recently admitted they were wrong about inflation, Hunter's laptop, and a lot of other stuff.  Of course, they will only correct the record after it doesn't matter anymore.   The damage from bias had been done.  The WP doesn't even bother to correct anything. 

When 55 generals and admirals in 2016 came out before the election against Trump for his misogynistic behavior, you know they have been set up to do that by the democrats and Hillary who were trying to shatter the glass ceiling. Suddenly generals and admirals have become the protectors of women's rights.  Give me a break.

republicans Cheney and Kinzinger wll lose their seats because voters in their districts and states decide it.  The fact is they are going after Trump because he tried to destroy them.  So now it's their turn for payback.  So they're more anxious to destroy Trump than the Democrats they sit with.  They're not there  going against everyone else in their party because they're just humble patriots.

[Alan Klein]

It's called dereliction of duty, defined as " ... a person's purposeful or accidental failure to perform an obligation without a valid excuse, especially an obligation attached to his or her job." In the military it can be punished by death (in wartime) or by 1 year in the slammer (peacetime). Of course the president is not in the military and those rules do not apply, but his oath of office does require him to "... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Do you think encouraging "demonstrators" to go and disrupt a fully constitutional process and then refusing to call them off meets this oath? Is this criminal from a legal sense? Maybe not, but as has been pointed out to you many times, the committee's purpose is to find out what happened and not to prosecute individuals.

There are no statutes that I;m aware of making a president;s failure to act in his official duties a criminal offense.  If those acts rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, then it's the Congress's responsibility to impeach, not pass the job to the Attorney General of the opposite party.  What statute would he charge Trump with? 

Notwithstanding what Chris said that presidents can be charged with crimes in courts, these apply to criminal acts that are private in nature, not for official duties.  So President Clinton was charged with perjury in a civil case and lost his license to practice law.  Nixon, had he not been pardoned by the next president (Ford), could have been prosecuted for conspiracy to hide a burglary (Watergate).  That was a private affair unrelated to his official duties as president.  (Chris I'm assuming that's what you were referring to - private crimes)

I gave some examples of charges against presidents and other government officials in a previous post for failure to perform their duties efficiently or in accordance with what's perceived to be their duties.  Can you imagine if we charge everyone for "failure"?  That's for the ballot boxes.   Or if it reaches the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment by Congress applies, not a political hack in the Attorney General's office.

Do the Democrats want to go down that path knowing congress is about to be taken over by Republicans who will try to get even?   The next potential speaker Republican McCarthy says he doesn't want to go there.  But other Republicans might pressure him because they're angry about what the Democrats are doing and will want payback.  Watch what you pray for.  You might get it.

[TechTalk]

Notwithstanding what Chris said that presidents can be charged with crimes in courts, these apply to criminal acts that are private in nature, not for official duties.

More astonishing ignorance. Private criminal acts? Where do I find that legal definition? Of course there are official acts of misconduct which can be criminal in nature!

Nixon, had he not been pardoned by the next president (Ford), could have been prosecuted for conspiracy to hide a burglary (Watergate).  That was a private affair unrelated to his official duties as president.

You know jack squat about the history of Nixon's presidency or Watergate and the criminal charges he faced for his conduct as president which included bribery (18 U.S. Code § 201), obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 1503), and obstruction of a criminal investigation (18 U.S. Code § 1510) by misuse of his office and its influence and power. Those are just the charges that a grand jury was prepared to bring at the time the pardon was announced. It's possible, even likely, that there may have been additional charges as the full extent of his criminal misuse of the office of the president was revealed over time.

By the way, Ford was serving as the unelected vice president because Agnew resigned the office while under federal investigation for criminal misconduct in office unrelated to Watergate. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland was investigating Agnew for criminal conspiracy, bribery, extortion, and tax fraud related to kickbacks from contractors during his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland which he continued to receive while vice president. He negotiated a plea deal for tax evasion.

(Chris I'm assuming that's what you were referring to - private crimes)

WTF is the legal definition of "private crimes"?

[Frans Waterlander]

WTF is the legal definition of "private crimes"?

Google is your friend: "Essentially a private crime is one where an individual or organisation chooses to bring about a prosecution rather than the state. However, before choosing to bring about a private prosecution it is important to be aware of what you are doing to see if you have a strong enough case."

[TechTalk]

That's known as a "private prosecution" and not a "private crime" and has absolutely no relationship to Alan's made up legal nonsense. Private prosecutions are only allowed in certain states and not at all in federal courts.

"A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation (such as a prosecution association) instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain (or are themselves) barristers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private prosecution United_States

Now, sit back down at the kiddie table and finish your baloney.

[TechTalk]

Just in case anyone is interested in the backgrounds of the seven retired four-star generals and admirals who issued a joint statement condemning Trump’s dereliction of duty and urging a renewed commitment to the rule of law and officials’ duty to protect and defend the US Constitution. These are the men smeared by Alan as political puppets who were "put...up to it". Below are links to their biographies with abbreviated summaries:

1) Admiral Charles S. Abbot: First in his class United States Naval Academy 1966 and was chosen as a Rhodes Scholar to attend Oxford University. Naval aviator. During the Gulf War, he commanded the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt  and the Theodore Roosevelt battle group while assigned as commander, Carrier Group Eight. Commanded the United States Sixth Fleet from 1996 to 1998, and completed his naval career as deputy commander-in-chief, United States European Command. Retired from Navy in 2000. Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush 2001 to 2003. Currently president of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, a private, non-profit organization for assisting sailors, Marines, and their families.

2) Admiral James Loy: Commissioned officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, served in combat as commanding officer of a patrol boat in the Vietnam War. Rose to the rank of admiral. Commandant of the Coast Guard 1998 to 2002. U.S. Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for President George W. Bush 2003 to 2005.

3) Admiral John B. Nathman: Graduated with distinction United States Naval Academy in 1970. Qualified as  Naval Aviator in 1972 receiving Outstanding Pilot Graduate Award while also completing a Master of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering. Graduated with distinction U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School in 1976. Served at the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) and oversaw the advanced tactical training at TOPGUN. Has flown over 40 different types of aircraft during his career. Commander of F/A-18 Hornet Strike Fighter Squadron. Commanding officer USS Nimitz 1992 to 1994. Commanded Carrier Group Seven, NIMITZ Carrier Strike Group, and Battle Force FIFTY in the Persian Gulf in 1996. Commander Naval Air Force, United States Pacific Fleet in 2000. Commander of all Naval Air Forces in 2001. United States Fleet Forces Commander in 2005 before retiring.

4) Admiral William Owens: Graduated United States Naval Academy with degree in mathematics in 1962. Rhodes Scholar at University of Oxford graduating with honors earning bachelor's and master's degrees in politics, philosophy, and economics. Master's degree in management from George Washington University graduating with honors. Began naval career as a nuclear submariner serving on strategic nuclear-powered submarines and nuclear attack submarines. Commanding officer USS Sam Houston and USS City of Corpus Christi. Spent a total of 4,000 days (more than 10 years) aboard submarines, including duty in Vietnam. Commander of the United States Sixth Fleet 1990 to 1992 during Operation Desert Storm. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the second-ranking military office in the United States, 1994 to 1996.

5) General Peter W. Chiarelli: Bachelor of Science in political science from Seattle University. Master of Public Administration from University of Washington. Master of Arts degree in national security strategy from Salve Regina University. Graduate of the U.S. Naval Command and Staff College and the National War College. Distinguished Military Graduate of Seattle University Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1972. Has commanded at every level from platoon to corps commander. Commanding general, 1st Cavalry Division, in Iraq War and Operation Iraqi Freedom II. Commanding general of Multi-National Corps – Iraq in 2006. Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 2008 to 2012.

6) General John P. Jumper: Bachelor of Science electrical engineering, Virginia Military Institute 1966. Squadron Officer School, 1975 and Air Command and Staff College, 1978 at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Master of Business Administration, Golden Gate University, 1979. National War College Washington, D.C., 1982. More than 5,000 flight hours in C-7, C-17, C-20, C-37, T-37, T-38, F-4, F-15, F-16, F-22A and Eurofighter Typhoon. Commanded a fighter squadron and two fighter wings. Commander, 9th Air Force 1994 to 1996. Commander, U.S. Central Command Air Forces and Allied Air Forces Central Europe 1997 to 2000. Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force 2001 to 2005.

7) General Johnnie E. Wilson: Entered the United States Army as an enlisted soldier, 1961. Attained the rank of staff sergeant before attending Officer Candidate School (OCS). Completed OCS in 1967 and commissioned a second lieutenant in the Ordnance Corps. Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Master of Science in Logistics Management, Florida Institute of Technology. Military education: Ordnance Officer Basic and Advanced, Army Command and General Staff College, and Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Served at every level of command advancing to Chief of Ordnance of the United States Army and culminating in his assignment as Commanding General, United States Army Materiel Command.

* I took a personal interest in seeing who the men were behind the joint statement regarding the oath and duty of those serving their country in the military or in government to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Alan dismissed their statement and their sincerity as patriots by reducing them to nothing but political pawns. I thought it would be worth a look at their service to their country given their disparagement in this forum. Just thought that I would share with anyone interested in these individual men, all of whom achieved the highest military rank of four stars. It's so easy to smear with a broad brush that I thought some added detail was in order.

[TechTalk]

Here are a few excerpts of what the men Alan smeared had to say in their joint statement...

“The inquiry by the House January 6 Select Committee has produced many startling findings, but none to us more alarming than the fact that while rioters thwarted the peaceful transfer of power and ransacked the Capitol, the commander in chief—former President Donald Trump—abdicated his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

“We each took an oath as former leaders of our nation’s armed forces to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ We fulfilled that oath through service to civilian leadership elected by and accountable to the American people. This essential arrangement, however, is not self-executing; it relies on civilian leaders equally committed to protecting and defending the Constitution—including, most importantly, the commander in chief.”

“The lesson of January 6 is clear. Our democracy is not a given. To preserve it, Americans must demand nothing less from their leaders than an unassailable commitment to country over party—and to their oaths above all.”

[TechTalk]

It's called dereliction of duty, defined as " ... a person's purposeful or accidental failure to perform an obligation without a valid excuse, especially an obligation attached to his or her job." In the military it can be punished by death (in wartime) or by 1 year in the slammer (peacetime). Of course the president is not in the military and those rules do not apply, but his oath of office does require him to "... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Do you think encouraging "demonstrators" to go and disrupt a fully constitutional process and then refusing to call them off meets this oath? Is this criminal from a legal sense? Maybe not, but as has been pointed out to you many times, the committee's purpose is to find out what happened and not to prosecute individuals.

It's a repetitive straw man argument that Alan keeps making. No one has said the Trump's complete failure to uphold his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", thru his dereliction of duty as commander in chief on January 6th, was a criminal act.

It was a complete ethical and moral failure that is without precedent or equivalence in the history of the country. It was a betrayal of: his oath, his sworn duty, and his country for nothing more than his personal vanity and ambition.

[Alan Klein]

Google is your friend: "Essentially a private crime is one where an individual or organisation chooses to bring about a prosecution rather than the state. However, before choosing to bring about a private prosecution it is important to be aware of what you are doing to see if you have a strong enough case."

Frans, those were not the private crimes I'm referring to.  It's not that private individuals can prosecute the crime.  It's that the president engaged in crimes that were private in nature like murder, rape, and burglary, outside of his official duties as president.  These can be prosecuted by federal or state courts as for any other citizen. 

However, in the situation we're talking about with Trump, it's claimed he failed in his official duties as president by not stopping the riot with forces he controls. That would not be a private act like burglary but an official act as president.  It seems to me that Congress would then be responsible for prosecuting it by impeachment if it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. 

Of course, the idea that Trump is responsible for the police force hired, trained, and directed by Congress, boggles the mind.  Congress spends 7 trillion a year including millions for their own Police Force to protect them.  They don’t want a president’s secret police forces like the FBI, CIA, etc. snooping around their offices.  After all they’re both co=equal branches of the government.  So, Congress set up its own police force. So now to blame Trump for their failure is turning logic on its head.  Pelosi is blaming Trump for the failure of her police forces that didn’t protect her.  Remember she fires the commander and her own sergeant at arms as Schumer fired the senate’s sergeant who the police reported to.  These people don’t work for the Executive branch.  In addition, Trump offered additional troops from DoD beforehand but Pelosi refused.  Was she prepping the police to not be able to handle the demonstration?  Troops eventually were sent in when the Capitol commander finally asked for help.  So where is the failure on his part. 

In a real trial, these facts, hidden during their Democratic hearing will come out embarrassing the Democrats.  An unbiased jury will hear both sides of the story.  Of course, I don’t see a trial because I am not aware of any statute regarding this.  Maybe the AG will make one up.  If congress feels he still is wrong then they should impeach and try him, in Congress, not in Federal court.

[TechTalk]

it's claimed he failed in his official duties as president by not stopping the riot with forces he controls.

That's more than a claim, it's an unambiguous fact. You're just not willing to acknowledge facts that you don't like.

[TechTalk]

It seems to me that Congress would then be responsible for prosecuting it by impeachment if it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. 

You need to borrow a 7th grade civics textbook.

[TechTalk]

Of course, the idea that Trump is responsible for the police force hired, trained, and directed by Congress, boggles the mind.  Congress spends 7 trillion a year including millions for their own Police Force to protect them.  They don’t want a president’s secret police forces like the FBI, CIA, etc. snooping around their offices.  After all they’re both co=equal branches of the government.  So, Congress set up its own police force. So now to blame Trump for their failure is turning logic on its head.  Pelosi is blaming Trump for the failure of her police forces that didn’t protect her.  Remember she fires the commander and her own sergeant at arms as Schumer fired the senate’s sergeant who the police reported to.  These people don’t work for the Executive branch.  In addition, Trump offered additional troops from DoD beforehand but Pelosi refused.  Was she prepping the police to not be able to handle the demonstration?  Troops eventually were sent in when the Capitol commander finally asked for help.  So where is the failure on his part. 

You can just keep repeating the same bullshit, full of the same factual errors, for as long as it suits you. It's never going to excuse what Trump did to create a violent crazy mob with his repeated BIG LIE campaign and the national tragedy which followed in its wake.

You're complicit in it by your repeated falsehoods, deflections, denials, and deceptions. It's disgraceful. If you were capable of shame, you would be ashamed for turning your back on your country and democracy to support and cover up for a sociopath that is still trying to undermine democracy and the rule of law in this country for his own petty grievances and spite. It makes me puke to think of it.

[PeterAit]

Here's a very perceptive essay by Dan Balz at WaPo about Trump and Jan 6. He did not just neglect to do things he should have done, he actively did things to make the situation worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/22/its-not-what-trump-didnt-do-jan-6-its-also-what-he-did-do/

[TechTalk]

A Google cached version of the Washington Post essay by Dan Balz...

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/22/its-not-what-trump-didnt-do-jan-6-its-also-what-he-did-do

[Alan Klein]

Here's a very perceptive essay by Dan Balz at WaPo about Trump and Jan 6. He did not just neglect to do things he should have done, he actively did things to make the situation worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/22/its-not-what-trump-didnt-do-jan-6-its-also-what-he-did-do/

Peter, to quote from the article, something I've been saying all along here.  We're only hearing one side of the story.  It's like being at a trial where only the prosecutor gets to call witnesses, make accusations, and talk to the jury.  And the anti-Trump Washington Post, is a cheerleader in this one-side kangaroo court.  If this case is so important, then why aren't they impeaching?  Instead, they're turning it over to a hapless Attorney General, a Democrat, who has to decide whether he has the authority and statutes to back him in court and in front of the Supreme Court who will eventually decide whether he exceeded his authority and the constitution.  So a gutless Congress, despite all their cries of Trump's refusal to act as he should have, will just pass the buck as the cowards they are.

Quote: "The committee has produced a compelling narrative, with much new information and with Trump squarely in the middle. But its work has not been tested in legal terms, its evidence not subjected to cross-examination, its case not hindered by procedural challenges that a criminal case would bring."

[TechTalk]

Which part of: the Committee hearings are not a legal proceeding but a process to gather and preserve evidence for the historical record, potential legislation, and public information are you incapable of processing with your little ideological hamster wheel?

[Alan Klein]

If Attorney General Garland is smart, he'll just turn it back to Congress and tell them it's their job to decide what happens next.  Only they have the authority to act. 

Of course, being a Democrat, my guess is he'll sit on it until Congress flips to the republicans in the election.  Then the whole thing will die a quiet death.  Then Congress will have hearings on Biden's son and we'll all have something else to argue about here and in the rest of the country. 

[Robert Roaldi]

If Attorney General Garland is smart, he'll just turn it back to Congress and tell them it's their job to decide what happens next.  Only they have the authority to act. 

Of course, being a Democrat, my guess is he'll sit on it until Congress flips to the republicans in the election.  Then the whole thing will die a quiet death.  Then Congress will have hearings on Biden's son and we'll all have something else to argue about here and in the rest of the country. 

So you see no value in exposing/explaining/investigating these historical events for the archives and for posterity but you cream hour jeans over Hunter's laptop. You're in a cult, you need de-programming.