[mike777]

Our local US congressman, a trump conservative, held a townhall meeting at our neighborhood High School.

two thoughts

1) very big room, smallish crowd est. 250
2) many called for trumps impeachment, they wanted the guy to vote for impeachment or suggested they would get rid of the congressman.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-02, 10:12, said:

The difference from all the others is that this crime was committed against the judiciary and the judiciary brought the charges to compel compliance. Without the power to compel, the judicial system is powerless and the rule of law becomes a meaningless phrase.

"The rule of law" refers to the concept that a nation should be governed by laws rather than the ideas of individuals. When the president interferes with the ability of the judicial system to compel compliance, he attacks the separation of powers.

Winston nothing new here. For hundreds of years the 3 branches of govt have been in battle for power, nothing new here.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-September-02, 10:51, said:

Winston nothing new here. For hundreds of years the 3 branches of govt have been in battle for power, nothing new here.

Sure, there has always been this wrestling match for power - but none so far has reached the level of totalitarianism as the Arpaio pardon, IMHO.

[mike777]

All I can suggest it to take a deep breathe and relax, it really has been worse in the past than this pardon. We shall survive Trump...

See Lincoln...See Jackson....See FDR... see Nixon....etc etc...

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-September-02, 13:04, said:

All I can suggest it to take a deep breathe and relax, it really has been worse in the past than this pardon. We shall survive Trump...

See Lincoln...See Jackson....See FDR... see Nixon....etc etc...

I understand that, Mike. But it seems not everyone understands that taking a legal action and adhering to the "rule of law" are not synonymous.

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-September-02, 13:04, said:

All I can suggest it to take a deep breathe and relax, it really has been worse in the past than this pardon. We shall survive Trump...

See Lincoln...See Jackson....See FDR... see Nixon....etc etc...

Agreed.

In the matter of Trump. . .this too shall pass.

http://trump-today.n...too-shall-pass/

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-02, 15:17, said:

I understand that, Mike. But it seems not everyone understands that taking a legal action and adhering to the "rule of law" are not synonymous.

And what is your definition of "adhering to the rule of law"?

[mike777]

Wandering between two worlds, one dead.
The other powerless to be born.....



Arnold

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-September-02, 17:40, said:

And what is your definition of "adhering to the rule of law"?

It seems you are confused about the phrase. A society in which a king is above the law (divine right) is completely lawful but does not follow the rule of law principle. Similarly, a society that uses laws to oppress its people in favour of a ruling elite (rule by law). A key principle of the rule of law in all of its various forms is that government officials are accountable and can be punished when they abuse their position. This is the specific point that is under discussion here.

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-August-01, 11:30, said:

The Huxtables were the exception. How many babies are born out of wedlock? How many families are single parent homes?

Again if we are going to have a race discussion as a first step lets define and use a standard of measurement to define race or is race self defined not something we are born to and unchangeable

I mean we all have ancient ancestors from Africa...

This chart breaks African-American incomes into quartiles, so while the Huxtables are the exceptions since few African-Americans are households of lawyers and doctors, 50%+ of African-American households are making $35,000+ annually. We have to focus the spotlight heavily on the bottom two income quartiles and find out why the bottom 50% appear to remain on the bottom 50% over DECADES! Quite honestly, I think we need to really look at the very bottom quartile (less than $15K) without judgment or condemnation and find out what the hell is going on to cause generational cycles of poverty over 1/2 a century.

By stratifying the data appropriately and asking those tough questions about the bottom quartiles, I think the government can come up with policy decisions that don't race bait and cave in to stereotypes. There is a "out of wedlock" issue going on that needs to be addressed but it is the effect of a larger policy issue at play.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-03, 04:20, said:

It seems you are confused about the phrase. A society in which a king is above the law (divine right) is completely lawful but does not follow the rule of law principle. Similarly, a society that uses laws to oppress its people in favour of a ruling elite (rule by law). A key principle of the rule of law in all of its various forms is that government officials are accountable and can be punished when they abuse their position. This is the specific point that is under discussion here.

So, what I hear you saying is that if President Trump takes actions that are fully lawful, i.e., are permitted or not prohibited by existing law, but enough people consider it to be an abuse, then President Trump is not following the "rule of law". Is that correct?

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-September-03, 08:09, said:

So, what I hear you saying is that if President Trump takes actions that are fully lawful, i.e., are permitted or not prohibited by existing law, but enough people consider it to be an abuse, then President Trump is not following the "rule of law". Is that correct?

Could you perhaps point out to me where you think I wrote that - I do not recall anything even remotely along those lines. While you are doing it, perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions. As I recall, this was #1 on the list of desirable outcomes for the "draining the swamp" pledge. But perhaps I misunderstood and in fact the desire was merely to replace one swamp with another one and holding government officials accountable (the rule of law) only applies to Democrats.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-03, 08:29, said:

Could you perhaps point out to me where you think I wrote that - I do not recall anything even remotely along those lines. While you are doing it, perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions. As I recall, this was #1 on the list of desirable outcomes for the "draining the swamp" pledge. But perhaps I misunderstood and in fact the desire was merely to replace one swamp with another one and holding government officials accountable (the rule of law) only applies to Democrats.

OK, so what is your definition of "rule of law". How does someone know if they are following it or not?

I personally think everyone should be held legally accountable for violations of laws. I personally think that politicians should be held accountable for their actions via the ballot box, or in the case of the egregious actions, impeachment. I personally don't want to confuse the two.

[ldrews]

Quote

perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions.

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner. Comey's decision to not prosecute, even with credible evidence, based on his judgement that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Hillary. All of this indicates to me that "the fix was in". This is a case of an individual being held to be above the law, not accountable. This, to me, is a case of not following "the rule of law".

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-03, 10:19, said:

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner.

What is the evidence for this claim

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-03, 10:21, said:

What is the evidence for this claim

It appears there is some basis for the claim but not anything that would raise an eyebrow among professionals in that field, and to use it is simply to buy into the right wing talking points - they are desparate to protect Trump from Russia and obstruction of justice.

Quote

A person familiar with the matter pushed back on the notion that Comey had already reached a conclusion that affected the investigation.
The person said back in spring 2016, agents and Justice Department officials were talking about how the investigation would end and there was a belief that the evidence was going in a direction to not support bringing charges. This individual said by April 2016 the FBI had reviewed most of the evidence and didn't find evidence suggesting that Clinton had violated federal law. The person said the FBI wanted to interview her but didn't believe it was going to change the outcome.
The source also said Comey was not involved in the day-to-day steps of the investigation, so even if he reached a conclusion it wouldn't have affected the result of the investigation.
A second person familiar with the matter told CNN that Comey had not already made up his mind, and that it did not influence the investigation. The second source says the FBI had already reviewed much of the evidence by spring and it was becoming more clear that it was not likely to support bringing charges.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-03, 08:29, said:

perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions.

It seems to me that President Trump is very much subject to "the rule of law". A special prosecutor is investigating him and his campaign team for violations of laws, several senators are talking of impeachment, etc. President Trump is not considered "above the law" in any sense. His actions, however disagreeable, seem to be within the scope of the law pertaining to the powers of the Presidency. In my opinion he is following the "rule of law". He may indeed have to answer for his actions politically, but that has nothing to do with "the rule of law".

[Al_U_Card]

ldrews, on 2017-September-03, 10:19, said:

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner. Comey's decision to not prosecute, even with credible evidence, based on his judgement that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Hillary. All of this indicates to me that "the fix was in". This is a case of an individual being held to be above the law, not accountable. This, to me, is a case of not following "the rule of law".

Despite the "question" of Russian involvement in the DNC hack, see here
Steve McIntyre (Yes, him!) has an interesting analysis of the dates of emails released etc. (more info)

Suffice it to say that there are many sides to this issue, none of which bode well for the well-being and security (cyber and otherwise) of the people.

[rmnka447]

ldrews, on 2017-September-03, 10:19, said:

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner. Comey's decision to not prosecute, even with credible evidence, based on his judgement that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Hillary. All of this indicates to me that "the fix was in". This is a case of an individual being held to be above the law, not accountable. This, to me, is a case of not following "the rule of law".

The information that about Comey drafting a memo exonerating Clinton long before the investigation was complete came from Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsay Graham.

http://www.cnn.com/2...tion/index.html

Comey did in his testimony under oath claim he didn't decide that no prosecution was warranted until after the investigation was complete. This revelation is a possible contradiction of that testimony and needs to be investigated further. At the very least, it brings up the issue of whether Director Comey prejudged the investigation or was predisposed toward exoneration. That could lead to a "self fulfilling prophesy" situation where he might have acted in a manner in line with that predisposition in pursuing the investigation ensuring exoneration. So, at the very least, there needs to be an inquiry to assure something like that didn't occur.

[PassedOut]

Not only that, but Hillary Clinton had an acceptance speech drafted well before election day!