Washington Post adds reasonable take on things

[BT]

As a result, Democrats now have a difficult choice to make. The wisest course of action would probably be to drop the complaint as a significant piece of evidence, since it raises almost nothing new. That would be politically embarrassing since they have made so much of it, but they could claim that the whistleblower’s job has been done since it unearthed the alleged wrongdoing and placed it in the public domain.

The alternative course sets the Democrats on a dangerous path. If the whistleblower’s complaint is probative of impeachment, then the whistleblower must testify to find out who gave the person the information that is described. That cannot be done without Republicans present and likely means the whistleblower’s identity must be disclosed. It is one thing to keep that person’s identity secret when the matter is largely handled internally; it is quite another when it is being used to try to remove the democratically elected leader of our nation. The accused must have a chance to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and that right applies as much to Trump as it does to anyone accused of wrongdoing.

Investigation of the whistleblower’s allegations also inserts the House Democrats into the deepest workings of the administration, such as the alleged discussions among White House officials to “lock down” records of the phone call. The president would be remiss if he did not assert executive privilege over these discussions. That will inevitably present Democrats with a Hobson’s choice: Either delay the impeachment hearings to fight such assertions of privilege in court or drop the matter to proceed to a vote without having all the evidence before it. Neither will help them achieve their likely aim: the swift resolution to impeach the president before the election year starts in earnest.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/26/whistleblower-complaint-doesnt-do-democrats-any-favors/

[Alan Stevens]

In the past newspapers spanned the political spectrum.
Now they are virtually all Left.

Globalist Interests have purchased our media in America and now all the the
media outlets shill for the Deep State.

They need to go to the Bottomless Pit.

[Expert]

There i no executive privilege over impeachment proceedings. If there were, the object of the impeachment could stop the process. Just like the president cannot pardon himself.

And you think you are a constitutional scholar. You might want to re-think that claim.

[BT]

Alan Stevens wrote:

> In the past newspapers spanned the political spectrum.
> Now they are virtually all Left.

They did have biases back in the day, back in the years, but
they were very open about it, everyone knew where they stood,
and the reporting could not hide behind a previously existing
reputation of objectivity like today's news providers have
been doing (tho' with that veil very tattered).

Today we have garbage like news that comes with an agenda of
let's do what we can to smash Trump, and keep everything Trump
off to the margins.

That's why it's really absurd that something that has always been
considered off limits enough to get similar treatment no matter who
is president, such as powder puff coverage of First Ladies and
the president's young children, now consists of giving the First
Lady almost zero coverage for the same things (having a garden,
let's tour the White House pantry, photo spreads, and giving us
coverage of Barron Trump the same way we got coverage of the Obama
kids, the Clinton kid, the Kennedy kids, and so on. I couldn't care
less about the stories since I have always had little interest in First Families, but I knew the coverage was always about the same no matter
who was in office.

Not this time. Barron is made fun of, he's pretty much ignored otherwise
by the same people who drooled and gushed over the Obama girls and Chelsea,
and the First Lady does not get on all of the same magazine covers as other
First Ladies have, and idiots have boycotted stores that carried her line
of clothing. It's really childish. But what else would you expect.

> Globalist Interests have purchased our media in America and now all
> the media outlets shill for the Deep State.

I don't know if "Global interests" have done this. or to what extent, but
what we see and hear in the media can easily be the same if owned by
plain old left leaning American fat cats. Note, by the way, that the Left
rank and file call all major TV and newspaper firms as being "conservative"
because they are owned by corporations or specific billionaire individuals
as majority owners. What a hoot.

If that were true, Don Lemmon wouldn't have job, and so on. Besides, these fat cats and corporations do own what they do, and note that there's no "conservative" bias like the crybabies say they do. These crybabies must be really embarrassed knowing that so many Fat Cat billionaires and corporations have left-leaning views.

But then, that's what the so-called progressive movement gave us a century ago - a more-than-necessary regulatory state that made big businesses partners in the uber-regulated economy. In fact, what the lefties of today never seem to understand (because they don't know history) is that big businesses WANTED regulations as a way of keeping competitors out or at least to a minimum, and as a way to guarantee a level of profitability. Lefties for some generations now learned the opposite - that the regulations were forced on them, the meat packing industry and the railroads being two classic examples.

B. T.

[Baxter]

Expert <bltz...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d61e9e82-6c54-4db4...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:12:26 PM UTC-7, Boob Turdman wrote:

>>
>> The alternative course sets the Democrats on a dangerous path. If the
>> whi
> stleblower’s complaint is probative of impeachment, then the
> whistleblower must testify to find out who gave the person the
> information that is described. That cannot be done without Republicans
> present and likely means the whistleblower’s identity must be
> disclosed. It is one thing to keep that person’s identity secret
> when the matter is largely handled internally; it is quite another
> when it is being used to try to remove the democratically elected
> leader of our nation.

>

> There i no executive privilege over impeachment proceedings. If
> there were, the object of the impeachment could stop the process.
> Just like the president cannot pardon himself.
>
> And you think you are a constitutional scholar. You might want to
> re-think that claim.
>

Boob Turdman lies - tRump was NOT democratically elected - Hillary was.
tRump was selected by the undemocratic Electoral College. Boob is too
stupid to think - he even still thinks women are not human, and still
looking for those Alaskan Fish Guts - and counting titties at Dancing
Bare in the morning.

[BT]

Non-expert wrote:


> There I[s] no executive privilege over impeachment proceedings.


The writer made no such claim. He said that executive privilege (which benefitted every past president from Washington to Obama) can or ought to
be used to keep only specific items from being out in the open. The
impeachment can go ahead - but if it relies on information that wrecks
executive privilege moving forward, then they have nothing.

I'll break in here to point out an example of the lame-brain knowledge of
government by numerous "journalists" when, last year at a state dinner in Europe, Trump was seen talking with Putin for a minute off to the side. What I heard were people (kicked off by the ignorant Joy Behar) demanding that we
the people be told what they were talking about. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Obama got his private talk time, and for good reason, and so did all the rest. If people think that nothing but negative results come from all such communications, then they have a problem. Judge by results.

Note, too, that during Obama's eight years as chief executive, no Republican or Republican-leaning long-termer (deep stater if you will) in the State or Defense Dep't leaked any personal conversation details between Obama and any other world leader or foreign high-ranking diplomat. That's because it was their job to maintain the ability of the executive branch communicate without worrying about any initiative or action being squashed because some ideologue or plain rat-screwer in the State or Defense Dep't leaks details in order to embarrass the executive and/or stop something he personally didn't want to see happen.

Would be interesting to see a scenario where this continues to spread, and then a Democrat gets into the White House in 2021 or 2025 and no world leader wants to discuss anything with the president unless off to the side in person, away from microphones. Not much good will get done. And during that stalemate, China and Russia can expand in the face of dispersed and uncoordinated opposition due to major western nations not having enough communications and coordination with each other.

All that thanks to short-sighted New Left Democrats all of a sudden thinking that private talks between presidents and other world leaders or diplomats
need to be scrutinized - just because they hate Trump.

> If there were, the object of the impeachment could stop the process.

Not really. That would mean you don't have much. But note that the
details of the phone call are out and if you think it's still not enough then
you don't have much. A better example would be if the House of Reps started impeachment proceedings against Roosevelt because of his talks with Joe Stalin and demanded to see the transcripts from Teheran and Yalta. Good luck. There
were indeed some bad things that came out of deals made there (without the Congress voting on them !), but that's what presidents can do as head of state with regard to foreign policy, settled or clarified by the USSC during the Washington Administration.

> Just like the president cannot pardon himself.

Sure - if he can (some say he can), then that needs to be put
into the Constitution. But then, the way around that is that
the successor would do the pardoning, unless we have an example of
a wrong-doer president being impeached and removed, and the VP
impeached and removed, as a pair, leaving a not very sympathetic
House Speaker as president and one unlikely to issue a pardon.

Oh, and that chain of succession starting with speaker as number three,
is not Constitutional, but no one has yet brought that to the USSC
to sort out.

> And you think you are a constitutional scholar.

I know quite a bit, even enough to acknowledge some realities I
don't like and previously challenged, something the Left is
unable to do. But as a "scholar" in this, I actually know more
than the alleged "Constitutional scholar" Obama ever did or will.

> You might want to re-think that claim.

Don't have any reason to, but it has been noticed that you
don't know much about it. Otherwise, to point to one thing,
you would have known something about "well regulated". It
helps to know these things, and what words mean and meant, which
fortunately in one ruling I really liked, Scalia insisted on
respecting the original intent of the word "search", which
lefty favorite JP Stevens ignored (but was fortunately in the
minority).

B. T.

[Alan Stevens]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:01:13 AM UTC-4, Baxter wrote:
> Expert <bltz...@gmail.com> wrote in

> > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:12:26 PM UTC-7, Boob Turdman wrote:
>
> >> The alternative course sets the Democrats on a dangerous path. If the
> >> whi
> > stleblower’s complaint is probative of impeachment, then the
> > whistleblower must testify to find out who gave the person the
> > information that is described. That cannot be done without Republicans
> > present and likely means the whistleblower’s identity must be
> > disclosed. It is one thing to keep that person’s identity secret
> > when the matter is largely handled internally; it is quite another
> > when it is being used to try to remove the democratically elected
> > leader of our nation.
>
> >
> > There i no executive privilege over impeachment proceedings. If
> > there were, the object of the impeachment could stop the process.
> > Just like the president cannot pardon himself.
> >
> > And you think you are a constitutional scholar. You might want to
> > re-think that claim.
> >
>
> Boob Turdman lies - tRump was NOT democratically elected - Hillary was.
> tRump was selected by the undemocratic Electoral College.

We're not a democracy, Leroy, we are a democratic republic.

[BT]

Baxter wrote:

> Boob Turdman lies - tRump was NOT democratically elected - Hillary was.

I don't know where I wrote that specifically, lately (for you to copy), but it is correct. There are a number of ways to have "democracy", and "democratic elections". The way we do it is one way, and thought out for our specific political make-up. Everyone who runs for president understands it and knows the way it's done.

A Democrat winning an EC majority but not a majority of the popular vote is the winner as well, and the Democratic rank and file as well as all Democratic Party office holders nation-wide will NOT complain about the win.

And for the record, Hillary did NOT win, and was NOT elected in any way in 2016. Even Michael Moore understood that - he said Hillary knew there were 50 separate elections but was too arrogant to think that she needed to go to Michigan, and Wisconsin, and so, and so she lost because Trump kept campaigning there.

Quit your crybaby stuff.

> tRump was selected by the undemocratic Electoral College.

The Electoral College is designed to diffuse and spread out the vote so that a big blob in just one region or in a few states can elect the national leader. Since the national leader was designed to have powers limited to a general government that cannot micromanage state and local governments, this was hardly something to whine about. You guys messed up in making the central government too powerful. But the EC system still serves its valid purpose.

And quit your disingenuous complaining about the "undemocratic" this or that, for what your side gets all too often are wins in the form of court rulings (undemocratic) that cancel out the direct democracy you pretend to champion. Fairly recent examples would be the ballot measures supporting defining marriage as one man, one woman in states like California (very blue), and North Carolina
(red, but with a large majority of black Americans, as in California, voting for one man, one woman). And the national government, under Clinton, did the same with legislation. You were only too happy to see five people in the whole country cancel out those direct and representative democratic votes.

And I bet you like the system in Great Britain (as many lefties do) even though not a single person votes for their national leader.

So screw you, baxter. You're a fraud.

B. T.