Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[TechTalk]

Why aren't you calling for democrat Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Leader Schumer to be fired for dereliction of duty?  They were in charge?

This is just f*cking ridiculous. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge or understand basic facts regardless of how many times they are repeated to you. Grow up!

[Alan Klein]

It seems the more Democrats talk about Trump, the worse their polls get.  Keep talking.


President Biden’s job approval rating hits new low in public poll
More Americans now think President Joe Biden is doing a bad job than at any prior point in his presidency, according to a major public opinion poll released Wednesday.

Just 31% of American adults said they approve of the way Biden is handling his job, while 60% disapproved of it, the Quinnipiac University poll found.

Biden’s approval ratings among registered voters also hit a record low in the Quinnipiac poll, as just 33% percent of voters said they liked the job he was doing, and 59% disapproved.

The findings came a day after a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that the Democrat’s public approval rating had fallen to 36%, matching his record low in that survey.[/b]
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-hits-new-low-in-public-poll.html

[TechTalk]

So now they're twisting it around to make the President derelict.

Twisting? You are utterly clueless as to any facts. Things that you keeps asserting as if they are facts are false and despite being given correct information, REPEATEDLY, you just keep asserting the same old falsehoods. WHY?

How tightly do you have to squeeze your eyes together to become this blindly faithful?

[TechTalk]

After all the revelations of Trump's actions and behaviours from the hearings, you're still spinning for him? I have no words.

I'm equally shocked, but I have plenty of words. Disloyal, Complicit, Unpatriotic, Untrustworthy, Collaborator, Blind... I think I'll stop there as this isn't good for my blood pressure and it might get ugly.

[PeterAit]

We disagree about ISIS but I don't want to get off track discussing it.  Let's stick with Jan 6th issue.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

[TechTalk]

In any case, I don't see a criminal charge because constitutionally, the House of Representatives is responsible for deciding if a president committed a high crime or misdemeanor, not an Attorney General (AJ), Federal prosecutor, grand jury or trial jury in a Federal court.  The AJ won't charge him for these reasons.  If he does, the Supreme Court will throw out the charges or any conviction.   The AJ has no authroity against a Pressident. Only Congress does.  Didn't we all learn that at the end of the Mueller investigation when Mueller and the AJ sent Mueller's report to Congress and told them it's up to them to handle the case, imposing an impeachment if they decided, not the Attorney General. 

This is one truly remarkable display of ignorance of the Constitution and the law. It's breathtakingly ignorant in fact.

[Peter McLennan]

OK I finally got to read some of what they said on another site that explained the Times article. The NY Tines original article was blocked for me.  The Times seems to have it in for me as well as Trump.

Leaving side the fact that politicains put these generals up to it like they did before the 2016 election, there are a few facts they and the Democrat hearings aren't revealing.

First of all, Congress is responsible for protecting the capitol with the Capitol Police, not the Executive Branch.  The President doesn't control it or man it.  The military is not supposed to get involved with police operations except under special circumstances.

Second, the fact is the DoD run by Trump offered additional troops to Commander Sund of the Capitol Police before the demonstrations and riot to supplement his forces.  He turned them down.  Later, when it started to get worse, he asked one or both of the Sargeant of Arms of the Senate and House run by Democrats who he reports whether he should get more troops.  He (or they) told him to hold off only later agreeing to let him get more troops.

Pelosi fired both Sargeants and the Commander on Jan 7th for incompetence and dereliction of duty.  So now they're twisting it around to make the President derelict.   I'll repeat. The president isn't responsible for the Capitol Police doing their job right.  Why aren't you calling for democrat Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Leader Schumer to be fired for dereliction of duty?  They were in charge?  You realize of course, if there was a trial now, they would have to explain their failure in court under oath.  I doubt if Pelosi or Schumer want to appear in court to explain why they screwed up. Not like the hearings now where it's all one-sided and you're only hearing half the evidence.

In any case, even if you want to blame Trump, OK.  So impeach him again for the third time.  It's not a criminal case.  He was acting as president. Not doing what people think you should do is not criminal.  Many people feel Biden is derelict for not protecting our borders. Should Republicans impeach Biden next year for dereliction when they take over congress?  Be careful what you hope for now.  The pendulum swings both ways. 

So Congress has to impeach and try him.  Other than that, the public could throw him out of the office and deny him a second term through the ballot box, which is what they did.  So he's been punished. In any case, I don't see a criminal charge because constitutionally, the House of Representatives is responsible for deciding if a president committed a high crime or misdemeanor, not an Attorney General (AJ), Federal prosecutor, grand jury or trial jury in a Federal court.  The AJ won't charge him for these reasons.  If he does, the Supreme Court will throw out the charges or any conviction.   The AJ has no authroity against a Pressident. Only Congress does.  Didn't we all learn that at the end of the Mueller investigation when Mueller and the AJ sent Mueller's report to Congress and told them it's up to them to handle the case, imposing an impeachment if they decided, not the Attorney General. 

It's all politics and the upcoming election.  Democrats are just hoping Trump will save their hides again.

What an atrocious post!  "It's Pelosi's fault and the Capitol Police's fault because they didn't defend the Capitol."

What about TRUMP's part in this?  Isn't it at least possible he could have ended it by, I dunno, calling it off?

You really are insufferable, Alan.

[Chris Kern]

I don't see a criminal charge because constitutionally, the House of Representatives is responsible for deciding if a president committed a high crime or misdemeanor, not an Attorney General (AJ), Federal prosecutor, grand jury or trial jury in a Federal court.  The AJ won't charge him for these reasons.  If he does, the Supreme Court will throw out the charges or any conviction.

At the risk of repeating myself, these idiotic claims have no basis in the actual law of the United States.  A former president is subject to the same prosecutorial liability as any other citizen for federal crimes he may have committed before, during, or after his term in office.  If the Department of Justice acquires evidence that an incumbent president has committed a crime, it has an internal policy—this is not a legal requirement—of deferring to the impeachment authority of Congress while the president remains in office; after he leaves office, the former president may be prosecuted.

[TechTalk]

Of course, It's common knowledge as well as common sense. It's why President Ford issued a pardon for Nixon covering any crimes he may have committed while in office.

Given all of the discussion surrounding the difference between political impeachment and criminal prosecution during the two impeachment trials of Trump, you would assume that at least some of it would have been remembered.

[TechTalk]

What an atrocious post!

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 the degree of all of it combined. The complete and utter disregard for anything of moral value like honesty, integrity, or duty combined with stubborn ignorance and willful blindness and denial of an incredible magnitude.

I find it sad, disturbing, and disgraceful... and far too common. It is, I'm afraid, part of a broadly shared delusional mindset that has been sold by a sociopathic con man to millions eager to swallow his message of you're a victim and these are your enemies.

[Alan Klein]

At the risk of repeating myself, these idiotic claims have no basis in the actual law of the United States.  A former president is subject to the same prosecutorial liability as any other citizen for federal crimes he may have committed before, during, or after his term in office.  If the Department of Justice acquires evidence that an incumbent president has committed a crime, it has an internal policy—this is not a legal requirement—of deferring to the impeachment authority of Congress while the president remains in office; after he leaves office, the former president may be prosecuted.

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

What criminal act did he do?  He didn't shoot the VP although he may have considered it.   If he did that, then he violated a state or federal crime of trying to kill someone.  Then I can see prosecution by a federal or state court.  He committed a private criminal act not part of his official duties.

So in the Jan 6th situation, he would have to be charged for not stopping a riot in progress and failing in his official duties as president.    What federal statute does that violate?  These kinds of acts seem to be reserved for Congress to impeach.  I don't think presidents can be tried for failure to perform official duties.  Could you explain how that would happen?  Presidents fail in all sorts of ways in their official acts.  When have federal courts gotten involved in prosecuting those after they left office?  These things are reserved for impeachment and the ballot boxes. 
 

[TechTalk]

None of which has any relationship whatsoever to the wildly false and absurd claims you made regarding how the Constitution and criminal law function with regard to a president or former president.

[TechTalk]

Presidents fail in all sorts of ways in their official acts.

Presidents don't fail to act when the nation or its Capitol is under attack — until Trump. That wasn't mere failure, that was betrayal.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a related question, Chris.  Can a former president be impeached? If so, then Congress should impeach him now if it's such as serious offense.  That way they could prevent him from ever running for office if he loses at trial. 

Since it seems they intend to turn it over to the Attorney General to sweat over what he should do, it seems they don't have the courage of their convictions.  They just want an indictment to use in the election against republicans.  Plus, instead of Congress using their official powers, they're taking the easy way out letting the AJ deal with it while they'll be home campaigning for the election.  The Democrat's public approval will drop another 4 points to 32%. It's all partisan and the public knows that.

[TechTalk]

...letting the AJ deal with it...

Who in the hell is "AJ" and what does he or she have to do with any of this?

[TechTalk]

...It's all partisan...

Since when has defending the nation from attack or supporting democracy been a partisan issue in the United States? Since the cult of Trump?

[Peter McLennan]

What's that oath Presidents swear to?   "Preserve, protect and defend ... so help me God?"

It may not be a "Federal" offense in Alan's opinion, but it's certainly an offense in the eyes of the rest of us, let alone to whatever god they're referring to.

What happens to USA military members who swear a similar oath and decide to disobey it?  What's their punishment?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I assume the "AJ" is the Attorney Jeneral. Or is it the Attorney Junior?

[Robert Roaldi]

...
So in the Jan 6th situation, he would have to be charged for not stopping a riot in progress and failing in his official duties as president.    What federal statute does that violate?  These kinds of acts seem to be reserved for Congress to impeach.  I don't think presidents can be tried for failure to perform official duties.  Could you explain how that would happen?  Presidents fail in all sorts of ways in their official acts.  When have federal courts gotten involved in prosecuting those after they left office?  These things are reserved for impeachment and the ballot boxes.

I see your point. Basically, he did the best that a narcissistic incompetent moron could be expected to do. It was all just a confirmation of the Peter Principle. I'm sure he learned from the experience and will do better next time.

[Alan Klein]

What would happen if new presidents' Attorney Generals charged previous presidents and their administration's officials with crimes for failure to act properly in their official duties while they were in office? 

Would Biden be open for murder or homicide for failure to protect 13 Americans killed during the Afghanistan pullout?  Would Secretary of State Hilary Clinton be responsible for the death of the American Ambassador in Benghazi?  Would Biden be responsible for breaking some immigration laws for his failure to stop illegal migrants from crossing the border or endangering Americans because they brought across Fentanyl?

This would open such a can of worms, the American government would seize operations every four years as each party would investigate former officials of a different party for partisan advantage.  What a mess?