This legal analysis disagrees with you. Worst case is IF Trump would have, he would increase his exposure to obstruction. But, alas, Trump didnt even have the legal authority to do so.
Not here. Not Dems. Human rights groups had to start suing the government when family detentions were expanded in 2014.
https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/issues/family-detention
No it does not. I have read that, it says, broadly that if Trump could not fire Mueller, he would have to have the AG do it for him, and it assumed that Sessions had recused himself and Rod would not. That all changed when Barr became AG. It also concludes that it would almost certainly be felony obstruction of justice to do so.
Nope, wrong again! That is what the abstract says, the full opinion says:It does NOT say "almost certainly". It says, and I quote, "increasing his exposure to charges of obstruction of justice"
First, as two of us have explained in a lengthy report on the matter, there is already substantial evidence that President Trump obstructed justice through a course of conduct that includes the firing of FBI Director James Comey. As detailed in that report, removing Special Counsel Mueller with the intent to impede the Russia investigation would amount to a doubling-down on the obstructive conduct in which Trump has already engaged.
The case that a firing of Mueller would constitute obstruction of justice would be especially strong now that a grand jury has returned indictments against Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign chairman, and Manafort’s former deputy, Rick Gates. The obstruction case against the president requires, among other things, showing that he has acted with corrupt intent and that his obstructive acts have some nexus to a qualifying proceeding. President Trump’s tweets43 about the indictment of Manafort show that he has knowledge of the criminal case, and there is a strong case to be made that interference with the office of the special counsel would amount to an interference with that ongoing proceeding.
Which I acknowledged
Based on the Mueller report? No. I understand that not guilty does not mean innocent, but if the AG didnt have enough to prosecute, then Im not going to assume anything.
Yes, the narrative that the Dems haven't and won't do anything on this issue is a bald lie. They've offered solutions and numerous compromises which all fell apart because conservative hardliners don't want it to happen at all.
If you want to blame people for the continual failure of this issue to be resolved look at Sessions, Cotton, the Tea Party, at least two GOP speakers, and now Trump himself.
Nope, wrong again! That is what the abstract says, the full opinion says:
EDIT: Might as well add the rest!
Pretty much says exactly what I have been saying. Trump firing Mueller would be felony obstruction of justice.
Getting back off Mueller and back on topic, the reverse problem is that even if the usual suspect conservatives stayed out of the way of increasing legal immigration quotas, I highly doubt the progressive left has it in them to return to being strict about illegal immigration. They look at economic migrants as "the little guy" who needs to be defended and we'd end up with higher legal immigration while still doing nothing to stop illegal immigration. Unless we completely uncap the number of legal immigrants, there's still going to be a non-zero amount of those with the least skills or poor culture fits (e.g. my example about the jihadist wanting to implement a caliphate in the U.S.) who they would seem to be fine with allowing in as "asylum seekers." They're not humanitarians, they're just open borders advocates who would be fine accepting any and all comers.
I like how our resident Trump fluffers dig these camps! If there is any God it will be their new homes real soon. Again, there is no place in our great Country for treasonous America hating traitors so we are going to have to house them somewhere before the mass deportations commence...
Well, he didnt fire him moot point.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States
Well why don't we try doing what we all agree is the right thing on immigration and find out? If they turn out to be hypocrites you'll have your answer!
Sure, I'll just use my power of omnipotence and say "make it so" snapping my fingers like Thanos and his infinity gauntlet as you suggested in the last thread. I have one vote and will use it (unlike you as you've stated repeatedly) but that's where my influence ends.
How are government contractors and family of cabinet members supposed to make piles of cash off them if we do that?
I would have thought my point was clear that I hope we collectively agree about implementing that comprehensive immigration reform and that it's at best extremely difficult to know what 'the progressive left' would do after that, not that I expected you to utilize the Infinity Gauntlet to enact such a policy.
On the off chance that's in the cards though it would be sweet if you could add 4 or 5 zeroes onto my investment accounts while you're snapping. Let me know what's doable.
So there's currently laws about illegal immigration the progressive left would rather not enforce. Why would allowing X number of additional legal immigrants make them suddenly feel more strongly about changing their mind to renew a commitment to enforce laws against illegal immigration? "Pass the law then trust me I'll do the right thing" isn't a very compelling argument.
So there's currently laws about illegal immigration the progressive left would rather not enforce. Why would allowing X number of additional legal immigrants make them suddenly feel more strongly about changing their mind to renew a commitment to enforce laws against illegal immigration? "Pass the law then trust me I'll do the right thing" isn't a very compelling argument.
By that logic what's the point in passing any laws?
Good question if progressives are going to selectively enforce them.
All laws are selectively enforced and have been throughout all of human history.
We don't deploy police at every corner to catch all jaywalkers and this is a purposeful choice. Does that mean we should disband the criminal justice system because laws are pointless?
Because if increasing X reduces illegal immigration to a smaller number Y, enforcement becomes easier/cheaper to accomplish with the resources we already have.Why would allowing X number of additional legal immigrants make them suddenly feel more strongly about changing their mind to renew a commitment to enforce laws against illegal immigration?
All laws are selectively enforced and have been throughout all of human history.
We don't deploy police at every corner to catch all jaywalkers and this is a purposeful choice. Does that mean we should disband the criminal justice system because laws are pointless?
AOC just got hammered for her concntration camp remark.
No she didn't.
Maybe you like this one better then.
I'm not sure why you think linking to more rants by stupid people who don't understand history would be better.
The conservative argument seems to basically be that despite the camps on the southern border easily meeting the dictionary definition of concentration camps that they can't be called that because they aren't as bad as the Nazi concentration camps. If that's the standard then the Japanese internment camps in World War 2 can't be called concentration camps either, so you're basically arguing that the person who made them (FDR) and the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court don't know what concentration camps are.
I do find it pretty funny that the political movement who constantly shrieks about political correctness is mad that people are using the dictionary definition here. Should we call them 'camps of increased density'? lol.
Happy Holidays when there are tons of people who celebrate things other than Christmas?
Conservatives: STOP THE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR! ReeeeEEEEEEE
Call something a concentration camp when it meets the dictionary definition of concentration camp?
Conservatives: DON'T CALL THEM THAT IT'S NOT FAIR. ReeeeEEEEEEE
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration camp