Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The (l)ibertarian Republican, Justin Amash, became the first Republican congressman to acknowledge that the Great Orange Pumpkin (GOP) commited impeachable offenses. Amash allowed that the Mueller Report, after reading it, does indeed describes actionable actions of obstruction of justice, and predictably his attackers are reframing to the allegations of the underlying Russiagate conspiracy. The latter of which we still no nothing of what Mueller concluded. The only thing starting to emerge as a constant theme is that the Real Deep State has orchestrated the entire Shit Show from front to back, and Right to Left.

Yesterday, Rep. Justin Amash made headlines when he became the first Republican lawmaker to turn on President Donald Trump by acknowledging that the president’s conduct is impeachable, based on a close reading of the Mueller report.

It was only a matter of time before the thin-skinned president—who obsessively watches cable news shows—responded.
Sure enough, on Sunday morning, Trump went after Amash on Twitter, although as with all things Trump, we can’t be certain the president actually wrote the series of tweets himself. Trump called Amash, who as a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus hasn’t been particularly noteworthy in terms of other legislative accomplishments, a “loser.” But the fact that Amash actually read the 448-page Mueller report sets him apart from most of his GOP colleagues.
“Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy,” Trump tweeted. “If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, ‘composed’ by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump…he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION...Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!” ...

The article goes on to discuss that such as Senator Mitt Romney is hedging, as a good Mormon and vulture capitalist historically does, by going against Amash and the now nearly 1,000 former federal prosecutors that have signed the letter stating that GOP is guilty of obstruction, at least.

It was the other GOP that changed their long standing candidacy rules that enabled Trump to bum rush the GOP nomination. And now they are the Great Orange Pumpkin Party (GOP). The Democrats have now gone berserk with their presidential primary candidates, most of whom should be contesting Senate seats. Now ol' Joe Biden, part of the institutional Dem machine appears contrived to serve as another foil for GOP to win his existentially necessary (for now exposed legal liabilities) re-election.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
A bipartisan chorus has been questioning when, if ever the Democratic Party will stop the charade and announce that they are indeed conducting impeachment investigations. At a minimum, this will provide further leverage in the courts over such as subpoena compliance, and enhance accelerated court rulings on the same. But instead, we are left to ponder if the Democratic strategy is really to enhance the results of the 2020 election, where supposedly this will dump Trump. This despite also such as Pelosi herself wondering out loud if Trump will honor the election results (as he had suggested would be the case if he lost, in the late stages of the 2016 election campaign).

The following excerpt is regarding a Hill.TV interview with Democratic strategist Joe McLean, where in the video he is clearly giddy about Pelosi's owning of Trump, in what appears to be this slow roll strategy.

Democratic strategist Joe McLean said Friday that the feud between President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is taking the steam out of a push toward impeachment by some House Democrats.
“I think it actually eliminates a lot of the impetus toward impeachment,” McLean, who led former President Obama's Senate campaign in 2004, told Hill.TV during an appearance on “Rising.”
“In order to keep her people in line, she’s provoked him and kind of made fun of him and shown that she can win,” he said.
McLean added that the ongoing exchange shows that Pelosi’s strategy toward the president is working.
“She’s playing him like a cheap fiddle and it is so much fun to watch. And the beautiful thing is, she will never rise to his provocation,” McLean said. “She treats him like a three-year-old who stamps his foot and hold his breath until he turns red.” ...

Meanwhile, even Faux News is taking such as Lindsey Graham to task about his radically different takes on his impeachment statements regarding Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Graham justifies this difference by that Mueller was to be strictly limited as to whether there was Trump election conspiracy with the Russians. Coming from Republicans, traditionally Rusophobic, the larger question (for the dying (r)epublic) really should be to the larger context of any kind of foreign, much less Russian, leverage over an overtly and massively corrupt individual like Trump. It was the Republican, Rod Rosenstein, who created the parameters of the Mueller investigation, while Trump keeps trumpeting that the investigation was completely run by Democrats, and occasionally he allows for Deep State Republicans being involved.

As such, the larger picture represents to me a standdown of both the federal level Republicans and Democrats. This includes the RNC Party decision to change their rigged process such that Trump, not a Republican in the first place, could achieve their nomination. And now the Democrats are repeating the same electoral mistake in their rigged process, by allowing so many candidates (of whom many should otherwise be running for the Senate). We are this point because the veiled imperium wants us to be here.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As I believe that the Western construct is dominantly globalist, while letting its various 'citizens' delude themselves in respective nationalist ethnic pretensions, Agent Orange Leaks's actions have now caused the threat of Xi to cut off our addiction to rare-earth metals. The effect would be catastrophic to our economies. Perhaps one might take this threat, if not an actuality, as an object lesson to be taught to the zealots about consequences.

As the globalist worm turns:

With a simple visit to an obscure factory on Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping has raised the specter that China could potentially cut off supplies of critical materials needed by huge swaths of the U.S. economy, underscoring growing concerns that large-scale economic integration is boomeranging and becoming a geopolitical weapon.
With the U.S.-China trade war intensifying, Chinese state media last week began floating the idea of banning exports of rare-earth elements to the United States, one of several possible Chinese responses to U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to jack up tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods and blacklist telecoms maker Huawei.
U.S. oil refiners rely on rare-earth imports as catalysts to turn crude oil into gasoline and jet fuel. Permanent magnets, which use four different rare-earth elements to differing degrees, pop up in everything including ear buds, wind turbines, and electric cars. And China dominates their production.
“It would affect everything—autos, renewable energy, defense, and technology,” said Ryan Castilloux, the founding director of Adamas Intelligence, a strategic metals consultancy. China supplies about 80 percent of the rare-earth elements imported by the United States, which are used in oil refining, batteries, consumer electronics, defense, and more.
Those concerns became a lot more tangible this week when Xi, accompanied by his point man for U.S. trade talks, visited a facility in the heart of China’s rare-earths industrial complex. Xi called for a new “Long March,” a reference to one of the founding epics of the Chinese Communist Party, in its economic war with the United States. “There is always some degree of misinterpretation, but with the timing [of Xi’s visit] it’s our view that the optics suggest what they suggest, and that it is indeed” a veiled threat, Castilloux said. ...

Interestingly, we know that the USA, at least, has an abundance of rare-earth metals, only we can't economically utilize them without converting our energy program to being thorium based. Clean, cheap, and abundant thorium based energy was discovered during the time of the Manhattan Project, but it was scuttled by the American atomic gurus. Why?

Scuttled just around the time of the Trump 'Tracker' episode in the 1950's. Just another coincidence. But, you can't be saved if you're already saved. Just saying.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Interestingly, we know that the USA, at least, has an abundance of rare-earth metals, only we can't economically utilize them without converting our energy program to being thorium based. Clean, cheap, and abundant thorium based energy was discovered during the time of the Manhattan Project, but it was scuttled by the American atomic gurus. Why?

More information on pros and cons of thorium nuclear reactors is here:

China tried to extract monopoly profits in rare earths once before. The squeeze didn't last long. Other sources quickly came forward, but the American ones soon faded out because of typical snafus. See:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
It's on nationalist bitches, you get to give your lives or your spawn's for your fake populist heroes' sakes. As the following excerpted opinion piece alludes in its conclusion, the only roadblock to preceding on to global war is fake 'convincing' Trump to wag the dog. Given the contrived circumstances of his election and legal obstructions and such, his existential path is to make sure he gets past impeachment and 2020 one way or another. The opinion piece also covers Senator Linseed Grahamcracker's similar statements about Venezuela.

Vice President Pence spoke to the West Point graduating class on Saturday, and amid the standard congratulations and tributes to the graduates, he said something truly shocking:
It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life. You will lead soldiers in combat. It will happen. Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific, where North Korea continues to threaten the peace, and an increasingly militarized China challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.
And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty, and you will fight, and you will win. The American people expect nothing less.
So, wherever you’re called, I urge you to take what you learned here and put it into practice. Put your armor on, so that when — not if — that day comes, you’ll be able to stand your ground.
Let’s pause and consider what this means. Pence is saying not just that more wars are inevitable, but that they are inevitable soon. Let’s not forget that while many of those who attend the service academies go on to careers in the military, many do not. They have an eight-year commitment after graduation — five years on active duty and three in the reserves.
So the vice president announced to these young men and women that within the next eight years, they will all see combat. In fact, Pence sees America waging war everywhere very soon, whether it’s “the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific,” “the fight in Europe” or somewhere in Latin America. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, Pence is saying that there will be no end to not just American presence but American combat in those places. ...
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpt is from an excellent op-ed piece by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick about Nancy Pelosi's insane impeachment logic. I think it is all correct, except that Pelosi's focus on winning the 2020 election seems more like a cover story for the demolition of the Republic, almost a fait accompli now.
For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, though, individual political calculus continues to take precedence over the rule of law. That position is becoming more and more untenable, as cracks appear in the Democratic front and even a Republican member of Congress is able to point out what is right in front of us all. “Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” GOP Rep. Justin Amash said over the weekend. Amash understands what is obvious to anyone who read the Mueller report in good faith: We have more than enough data to name and investigate the crime. Amash has been joined by a fistful of renegade Democrats who are finally content to say “we know enough.” If not enough to impeach, then at least enough to initiate an inquiry.
The problem with Democratic pointillism is that if congressional Democrats truly refuse to see the big picture, after the staggering proof put forth in the Mueller report, the daily reports of gross financial misconduct and corruption, and the administration’s growing refusal to accede to any form of congressional oversight, one has to wonder which hypothetical red dot or yellow smear might persuade them that, um, crimes. Perhaps some belief in Trump’s infamous boast that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot a man without losing support has spooked Democrats to the point of paralysis. The reality is that Democrats on the Hill know what criminal obstruction looks like—they are just too terrified to say so.
The other problem with Democratic pointillism is that House Democrats want to look like measured and rational adults in the face of the biggest toddler tantrum ever witnessed in presidential history, one in which the Constitution is being repurposed as a diaper. But as any parent or even uncertified Red Cross babysitter will tell you, every time you decline to impose consequences, you move the line for acceptable behavior a little further. Mueller is himself trying to look measured and rational by demurring from testifying. Looking adult and rational in the face of abject insanity is not always synonymous with bravery, especially when the other side is shouting TREASON and LOCK THEM UP and INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS.
Democrats who say they want to focus on the economy, or the 2020 elections, or other kitchen table issues, give up more and more authority to the reckless, power-snatching president by the day. By attaching no real consequence, they are essentially telling the country that Steven Mnuchin should keep defying a House subpoena of the president’s tax records and Donald McGahn should keep refusing to testify on obstruction of justice. In ceding that power to a president who believes himself all-powerful, they are simply making it so.
“But wait!” Democratic leadership might say, taking yet another step closer to the painting. “You’re missing the point.” What’s the downside of these drawn-out court fights brought on by what is itself impeachable conduct? (See: Article III of the Nixon impeachment articles.) The downside is the appearance that there is virtually nothing this president could do to trigger an impeachment proceeding, something Trump sees, relishes, and will bank on in whatever he does next. ...

The following excerpt is from a prior related op-ed by the same writer. However, here, we can see that like Pelosi's flawed rationale, the Russia narrative helps to distract from the domestic agenda to foment an overt imperium in favor of the republic. If it weren't for those Russian, if it weren't for Comey and Obama's et al. miscalculations, ... we wouldn't be in this situation. If it weren't for Republicans changing their nomination process, for standing down from their traditional Russian paranoia, for turning their eyes away from their previously loud concerns over checks and balances, ... (But this is why the Republicans are averting their eyes: They think they will get judges to turn the clock back on the Constitution, but the Republic for which it stands will all be taken from them.)

Donald Trump won’t accept a 2020 presidential election loss, whether it’s by a large margin or a small one, for the same reason he never accepted his 2016 popular vote loss—he doesn’t like it, and so he won’t let it be true. He will convince a third of the country that it wasn’t true, because he doesn’t like it. Indeed, that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 is, by means of his perfectly circular reasoning, the very reason he will not countenance the idea of Russian involvement in the theft of the 2016 election. It’s also the reason he created a fraudulent “voter fraud” commission. His psychological fragility on this matter has meant that he has done less than nothing to deter more meddling in the 2020 election. He wouldn’t even broach the topic with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, because if you live in Donald Trump’s head, no election loss is legitimate. It’s funny to think that a “big” election loss would make the difference.
None of this is news to Nancy Pelosi, but unfortunately, putting one’s faith in the elections system makes even less sense today than it did in 2016. As Jamelle Bouie observes, we are now in the epicenter of an all-out vote suppression crisis that has become an all-out democracy crisis.
It’s easy to forget this, but it bears repeating: The reason former FBI Director James Comey [supposedly - rs] didn’t take the Russian threat against the elections system seriously enough in 2016 is because he believed Hillary Clinton would win by large margins. The reason President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder and others who knew about the threats before we did failed to respond with utmost urgency and seriousness is [supposedly - rs] because they too believed that Hillary Clinton would win. By large margins. Time and time again, people who had access to both information and power opted to take the less draconian path [supposedly - rs] because they believed that there would still be a free and fair election and that Trump would not win it. We know how that turned out.
We make the same mistake of not acting on the ongoing threats to congressional oversight, to free and fair voting, and to foreign cyberattacks because an election might solve it at our peril. An election may well become the problem. Doing less than absolutely everything possible to reinstate the rule of law in America today in the hopes that there will be less election interference next time, or more benign election interference, or less purposive election interference, is insane.
This isn’t a joke. This is a full-fledged crisis of constitutional democracy and the checking function of Congress. It’s heartening to think that in a year and a half we can vote our way out of our predicament, but it’s a bit like suggesting that we have a good long national think about how things are currently going and tend to it all in 2020, when all the systems that were already broken in 2016 are more broken. If Democrats in the House seriously believe that the attorney general has covered up illegal activity and is refusing to accept congressional oversight, they should model seriousness. Which means that they should do something about it, beyond waiting for the problem to be voted away by large margins. ...

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Mueller has finally spoken, literally, and the result is what I had speculated would happen. A big thud, a thud that leaves the situation to further fester. Former staunch Constitutional Republicans (that is those that haven't quit in disgust or targeted by Trumpists) and establishment Democrats are sitting on their thumbs, fiddling while "Rome on the Potomac" burns.

Hmmm, Trump as Nero? Nice real estate typology.

It was, to some, a deeply unsatisfying end to an investigation they thought would get to the bottom of the most important questions about Donald Trump and Russia.
"Mueller had one job: To settle the most inflammatory and speculative Trump-Russia allegations once and for all," tweeted Mattathias Schwartz, who writes about national security in the New Yorker and elsewhere. "Instead, he punted… Now we're permanently stuck with two realities coexisting in one country."
Mueller didn’t punt on everything. His report very clearly says he didn’t find sufficient evidence to charge a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
But as to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was in any way compromised by Russia over business connections, dark secrets or anything else — the report is entirely silent. And Mueller said that since he couldn't bring a charge against a sitting president, he couldn’t make a prosecutorial judgment on obstruction, either.
Mueller was not operating under the independent counsel law that expired in 1999, which allowed Kenneth Starr to examine and report on conduct by President Bill Clinton that wasn't clearly criminal.
That part was known. But Mueller revealed in his remarks something few people understood about his approach: He and his team concluded early on that they could not accuse the president of a crime even informally, without charging him. They read that to mean they could not even make a decision about whether Trump obstructed justice.
"It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge," Mueller said.
That language is not part of the Justice Department doctrine that says a sitting president can't be indicted. Mueller and his team took that policy one step further, in the interest of fairness. Some would argue that an impeachment trial in the Senate would offer the president a forum to defend himself, not to mention his Twitter feed.
But on the question of the Trump campaign's dealings with Russia, that narrow finding was the only conclusion Mueller reached, despite laying out a mountain of evidence of suspicious contacts, back channels, business deals and approaches.
Did any of those contacts with Russians compromise national security? Did the Trump team report any of it to the FBI? Did the president have any business dealings with Russians beyond the proposal to build a tower in Moscow?
Mueller's report answers none of those questions, and Mueller made clear that he never will. ...

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Agent Orange admits his Treason. He is admitting that there is indeed evidence, just not enought for him to be charged. Of course, even this is a lie, because Mueller re-iterated what the Report said, that he is prevented from bringing charges, that this is Congress's Constitutional job. Agent Orange is also shading, because there is a difference between being termed "Not Guilty" versus "Innocent".


Of course, we must ponder that all of this is a shit show.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Agent Orange admitted that the Russians helped get him elected, just that he had nothing to do with it. Once people read this, he quickly deleted the Tweet.


Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The debate about presidential power has been raging long before the Great Pumpkin arrived on the scene. However, he and his minions, like William Barr, seem determined to take monarchial or imperial presidential powers to new levels. As such, the following long excerpt is from an article by a law professor who has been intensively examining the background to Constitutional authority of the 'executive'. I have also left some links provided by The Atlantic to related articles.

These aren’t selective examples. Pick a random recent controversy about presidential power, and you’re almost certain to find the president-as-king claim woven into the debates. During the George W. Bush administration, the argument was used to defend the torture of prisoners, the evasion of habeas corpus, and the claim of authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional authorization. During the Obama administration, the argument surfaced in debates about the administration’s defiance of a statute recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and about the use of force against Libya. And supporters of the Trump administration have supercharged the claim, advocating a breathtaking theory of indefeasible imperial prerogative in areas ranging from the Russia investigation and workaday congressional oversight to immigration law and the bombing of Syria.
After years of research into an enormous array of colonial, revolutionary, and founding-era sources, I’m here to tell you that—as a historical matter—this president-as-king claim is utterly and totally wrong. I’ve reviewed more than a thousand publications from the 17th and 18th centuries for each instance of the word root exec-, and have read most of those texts from cover to cover with the topic of presidential power squarely in mind. I’ve read every discussion of executive power and presidential authority that appears in the gigantic compilation of archival materials known as the Documentary History of the Ratification of the United States Constitution. And with the help of a team of research assistants, I’m most of the way through flyspecking the full records of the Continental Congress—including committee reports, floor debates, and delegate correspondence—with the same question in mind.
All this work has left me with both the confidence to share this conclusion and the sense of obligation to do so as bluntly as possible. It’s just not a close call: The historical record categorically refutes the idea that the American revolutionaries gave their new president an unspecified array of royal prerogatives. To the contrary, the presidency that leaps off the pages of the Founders’ debates, diaries, speeches, letters, poems, and essays was an instrument of the law of the land, subject to the law of the land, and both morally and legally obliged to obey the law of the land.
If you had the same third-grade history class I did, you might think this all goes without saying. But in the realm of constitutional law, these findings represent a tectonic shift.
For more than two centuries, jurists and statesmen have intoned that “ours is a government of limited powers.” That proposition is the foundational principle of federal power. The Constitution did not grant Congress open-ended authority to regulate in the public interest. Instead, the Founders wrote a laundry list of highly specific legislative authorities. This enumeration strategy, the Supreme Court has explained, is why courts must carefully consider the national government’s legislative limits: “If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted.” From this starting point comes the endless constitutional sparring over the scope of the powers to regulate commerce, to tax, to spend, and to enter into treaties—just to name a few. Almost everyone agrees that unless legislators can point to an affirmative grant of constitutional authority, Congress simply can’t act.

A funny thing happens, though, when it comes to the presidency. Suddenly you see hand-waving that would be laughed out of the room just about anywhere else. Here’s Justice Robert Jackson on executive power, in 1952:
A judge, like an executive adviser, may be surprised at the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves. Just what our forefathers did envision must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.
This is one of the most celebrated opinions in constitutional history. Is Jackson seriously advising us to approach problems of presidential power by meditating on curtsying wheat and overweight cows?
The answer is obviously no. But such sorcerous gesticulations are motivated by an inconvenient fact: The constitutional text doesn’t actually authorize the president to do very much. It enumerates the veto, appointments, and pardon powers. It grants the president “the executive power” and the office of commander in chief. It authorizes the president to receive foreign ambassadors, demand reports from his subordinates, and deliver a State of the Union address. But aside from a few miscellaneous process authorities, that’s just about it.
The way president-as-king theorists see it, this fact is more than just inconvenient; it’s downright dangerous. Can we imagine a country, they ask, whose president doesn’t have the authority to conduct diplomacy, recognize foreign governments, terminate treaties, acquire territory, fire officers and employees, or announce national policy? Is it conceivable, they wonder, that our national charter would fail to include an escape hatch—“In case of emergency, break this law”—for any legal requirement that interferes with our national security? For president-as-king theorists, to ask these questions is to answer them. And so they claim that the first three words of Article II—“the executive power”—vest all the authorities I’ve just described and more.
As a historical matter, my research shows that this claim is dead wrong. “The executive power” granted at the American founding was conceptually, legally, and semantically incapable of conveying a reservoir of royal authority. The real meaning of executive power was something almost embarrassingly simple: the power to execute the law. Overwhelming evidence for this point pervades both the Founders’ debates and the legal and political theory on which their discussions drew. ...

Also, related to relative constitutional powers is this article below that discusses the implications of two current Supreme Court cases. One of which is ironically based upon the case of a sex offender, and if he wins it could severely roll back the so-called administrative state, the wet-dream of many real and phony conservatives. However, as the above excerpted article discusses, the legislative branch had/has every constitutional authority to delegate bureaucratic authority over vastly complex issues. And, Congress has every Constitutional right to question those bureaucrats and even the Great Pumpkin, and change their prime directives if need be. Such advocates of imperial presidential power, whatever their motivations, are counter-revolutionary ... to the (Liberal) American Revolution.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpt is from the included links in the prior post. The year-old article discusses what makes Trump's take on executive power unique from all the historical controversies over the same (which are summarized). What is different is Trump's willingness to use it for his self-interest. It's bad enough that he and his cabal are such rampant grifters, but that taking executive power to its ultimate conclusion is likely what will save him from jail. That is, unless he manages to wrangle a pardon from an impeachment posse.

Donald Trump’s take on executive power is peculiar, but not merely because he’s reaching for more of it.
Expanding presidential prerogatives is practically part of the job description in the modern era. So when Trump’s all-caps flirtation with a self-pardon this week launched a new round of concerns about the president’s use of executive power, many of those concerns were, in part, misdirected.
That’s not to say that Trump’s behavior is normal. In suggesting that he might pardon himself—even as he insisted that he had done nothing to necessitate it—Trump implied that he was not so much above the law as beyond it entirely. And Trump’s unprecedented assertion to self-pardon comes at a time when his legal team is busy making other questionable claims—like the idea that the president can reasonably resist a subpoena, and the assertion, made by Rudy Giuliani, that Trump couldn’t be indicted even if he were to shoot former FBI Director James Comey.
Critics see this, rightly, as part of a broad rhetorical effort to undermine rule of law. “We overthrew control by a monarchy, and the Constitution signals in multiple places that the president is subject to law,” Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University, told Charlie Savage.
But what’s most interesting is the way the president is choosing to flex his muscle compared with his predecessors. Past presidents have frequently tested the limits of their powers—and of the Constitution—on national security, war powers, and push-pull interactions with the legislature. But Trump seems to be pushing against the limits of his presidential power almost entirely to protect himself. “He certainly uses presidential power for personal purposes,” says Julian Zelizer, a professor of history at Princeton. “That’s the place he uses it more aggressively—to protect himself, to protect his inner circle. That’s clearly where he’s most assertive.”
By even publicly discussing a self-pardon, Trump is breaking new ground. ...

Jerry Russell

Staff member
What is different is Trump's willingness to use it for his self-interest.

It's an obviously logical progression, though. If Congress essentially abdicates the law-making function to the man with the "monarchical authority" and the "Royal Prerogative", then why wouldn't the Crowned Head take advantage of those powers?

If you had the same third-grade history class I did, you might think this all goes without saying.

I don't think they teach civics anymore, not even in high school. No wonder the voters are confused.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
To be clear, I didn't write those quotes, but rather they came from the article excerpts.

It's an obviously logical progression, though. If Congress essentially abdicates the law-making function to the man with the "monarchical authority" and the "Royal Prerogative", then why wouldn't the Crowned Head take advantage of those powers?
We are stuck with this problem of intrinsic and historical internal duality of expansionist globalism versus nationalist stasis. It's ironically in the confusion and controversy over States' Rights versus Federalism. It becomes a threshold question of how much can Congress delegate balanced with its oversight function.

I think one big flaw in all of this is letting the Justice Department reside in the Executive Branch. It should be part of the Judicial Branch.
I don't think they teach civics anymore, not even in high school. No wonder the voters are confused.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The excerpted article below discusses the massive course correction that Trumpists are willing to make in the Western order since WWII. The irony is that President Bone Spurs is only allied with Trumpists out of expediency to other agendas, including his family's greed. In an interview given during this trip to memorialize D-Day he states that he's making up for not having served in Vietnam (because of his fake bone spurs) by dramatically increasing military spending (with other people's money). On stopping in Ireland, he tells the Irish leader that they will be needing their own wall (up against Northern Ireland) because of Brexit. This after just having been hosted by the Queen of England.

COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France—For many Europeans, the spectacle of Donald J. Trump speechifying about the sacrifices made by the thousands of young men whose bodies lie beneath this garden of stone is a grotesque irony. One French journalist summed up the sentiment crudely but with an edge of truth as we looked at the rows upon rows of crosses: “So many will be rolling over in their graves, it will feel like an earthquake.”
The Americans who lie here fought and died to defeat Nazis, to defeat Fascists, to build a better, freer world based on ideas that President Franklin Roosevelt spoke of as “the Four Freedoms”: freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship in one’s own way, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
When the fighting finally ended in Europe and the Pacific in 1945, the gruesome realities of the battlefields and of the concentration camps, the death marches and the crematoria, led the world that wanted to call itself civilized to vow we would never forget and never repeat such horrors again.
But now comes Trump, born the year after the war ended, who does not remember and probably does not want to know what brought it on, and whose encouragement of aggressive, vindictive, sometimes rabid nationalism at home and abroad opens the door to precisely those evils that the dead here fought to defeat.
The rise of renewed white nationalism in Europe began before Trump entered the political arena, and for a brief time after his election he seemed so completely disreputable that even the likes of Marine Le Pen, in France, were not comfortable with him. But those days are past, and Trump—along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as it happens—is seen as an inspiration for demagogues from Nigel Farage in Britain to Matteo Salvini in Italy and Viktor Orbán in Hungary.
Their common ambition is to dispense with the shared values that the Americans, Canadians and Brits here at the Normandy Beaches fought for—although of course they don’t put it that way—and to weaken if not destroy the institutions built to make sure such a war would never be repeated.
The Trumpists of Europe say they are defending the greatness of their own cultures, but they can only do that by portraying others as inferior and threatening. They thrive on fear. They demean the worshippers who do not share their dogmas. They stifle free expression. They claim that these “foreign” forces and influences will leave their people wanting for jobs and services. ...

If the D-Day spectacle wasn't enough, this July 4th it may boil over the top. As far as I understand the plans are still on for Trump to politicize and personalize the big Washington D.C. event. As discussed in the link, as happened when Trump's old friend, Nixon, tried similarly, this seems sure to draw a countering crowd and it will likely turn violent. This will be perfect for Bone Spurs to use as a pretext to take the next step, declaring martial law and essentially becoming dictator.

As to whether Trump is an actual fascist or not, his former wife, Ivana, stated that he used to keep a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand. Of course, true fascists proclaim an aversion to typical American values, exemplified by such as Trump's consumerism. They share a bond with Trump in their aversion to the chaos of democracy, whether restrained by a republic or not. The rhetoric of the leader is what is valued most, as Hitler was also a profiteering grifter, albeit on a smaller scale than Trump.

The whole phenomenon is is so hypocritical, as typified by Trump's comment on the Irish wall. The constitutional basis of the USA contains the Commerce Clause, without which the American 'states' could not trade freely with each other. This proved to be a huge economic boon to the USA, versus going the route that Trumpists and other fascists want to take.

As I have recently discussed these nationalists all stand on ground that historical globalists fought for, the inherent duality of Western Civilization. And, in excerpting such an article as above we must always keep in mind the fact that such as the world wars, and so much more, is subject to intense manipulation -- by the Deepest State.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Taken with the prior post, and all I've discussed prior on this and other threads, the following excerpted article discusses more of Trump's dictatorial / imperial actions. Yet, this writer amazingly assures us, with no justification whatsoever, that Trump will not push the button, despite giving us all the justification in the world to think that he will.

It matters little whether orders to hide the U.S.S. John S. McCain from President Donald Trump’s sight during his U.S. Navy base visit came directly from Trump or, as acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney would have it, they were issued by a “23- or 24-year-old person” on the White House advance team looking to shield the touchy president from any reference to McCain, his political nemesis. Either way, Trump has gotten the U.S. military to pay him the deference a king expects.
Trump has steadily erased the boundaries that separate the military from politics. Last Thanksgiving, during a holiday phone call with troops, he browbeat the unfortunate servicepeople on the other end of the line with his views on migrants, trade and judges. In a December visit to troops in Iraq and Germany, he broke the standard rules prohibiting the politicizing of the military by giving overtly political speeches. In May, the Daily Caller reported his plans to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to perform police work on the border. Pentagon press briefings, once at least a weekly occurrence, haven’t been held for more than a year. Why? Senior officials tell CNN’s Barbara Starr that “televised briefings stopped because of worries that TV watcher-in-chief, President Trump, would get angry if he saw something he didn’t like.”
Many voters and pundits sleep easier at night by telling themselves this is just Trump being Trump, an outsider who doesn’t restrain his ego within the usual lines. But these are an authoritarian’s moves. They aren’t restricted to the soldiers and sailors under his direct command. He has also feted America’s other armed responders, like sheriffs and police chiefs, with pandering speeches that invite cops to crack heads if they feel like it. In a July 2017 speech at Suffolk County Community College before a backdrop of uniformed police officers standing in formation, Trump claimed that “the laws are so horrendously stacked against us, because for years and years they’ve been made to protect the criminal.”
Who is that “us”? Trump was never a cop, but his use of the plural pronoun is deliberate—he encourages the police to identify with him, directly and personally, and not with the chain of command or the laws that are supposed to govern their behavior. Addressing a group of sheriffs last September, he portrayed the police as disrespected and defamed—the way he views himself—saying, “We will not tolerate smears, or slanders, or assaults on those who wear the badge and police our streets.” Speaking over the chain of command to soldiers and police, El Jefe style, he fashions himself the final authority on the use of force. In an April visit to the Mexican border, he personally directed members of the U.S. Border Patrol to block migrants from entering the country and to ignore any judge who might contradict him, and he lamented the fact the military can’t get rougher on the border.
Not every department of lethal force has bowed to the president. The FBI and the intelligence community, more often targets of Trump’s bile than of his fawning and flattery, stand out as exceptions. But he still strives to make the G-men and spooks his captives. He recently gave Attorney General William Barr unprecedented powers to declassify intelligence connected to the Russia probe that critics might end up politicizing intelligence and law enforcement. And just this week, he finalized plans to turn Independence Day on the National Mall, long an apolitical expression of love of country, into his own “A Salute to America” celebration.
Trump isn’t the first president to attempt to bend the military and police to him. John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert to the office of attorney general to get better control over federal law enforcement. Richard M. Nixon founded an entirely new law enforcement branch, the Drug Enforcement Administration, from which he extracted extraordinary loyalty. But no president has injected politics into official agencies of force as Trump has.
In so doing, Trump has already sketched out how an American emperor would behave. Earlier this year in an interview, Trump warned “the left” it could expect extralegal violence from his best-armed supporters if it steps out of line. “I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump—I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad,” he said.
Soldiers, cops and bikers getting tough on “the left” in the name of their president. Chew on that image for a moment.

Pelosi will not hit the Impeach Button, and doing this seems to be the one way that the wider public would learn the lessons about what is in the Mueller Report that would justify his impeachment and conviction. Now we learn that Pelosi's resolve not to impeach is that she wants to ensure that Trump goes to prison, which can only practically happen if Trump is tried after leaving office (because of the possibility that the Senate wont convict). But this was the same dynamic as with Nixon's threatened impeachment. People found out what Nixon was up to and Nixon voluntarily absquatulated from the White House. We need to dump Trump more than we need him in prison.

The people defying subpoenas should be sitting in jail, but all of this is on a slow roll. And by the 4th of July they will not have been awoken enough at this rate.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member

The above link is a discussion about the John Dowd voicemail to General Flynn's lawyer, whose audio was released today by the judge. In the discussion it is mentioned that Pelosi's strategy will backfire if Trump wins re-election, because the statute of limitations on obstruction of justice is only 5 years. Pelosi is already pissing off a large number on the left with this BS. She needs them to be voting in the next election and if they are discouraged by the failure to at least establish "impeachment hearings" as the precursor to voting to impeach then many may decide not to vote.

I rank this as a stand-down akin to that of the Republicans and their once staunch support of the republic.

Then there is also the question of how the President's personal criminal attorney could be so stupid as to leave a voicemail of such criminal content. And why hasn't Dowd been charged criminally by Mueller?

Less widely reported, interestingly we see that Roger Stone and his lawyers have done a 180 and are now claiming that the Russians did indeed hack the DNC. Whoa, what happened to their Seth Rich narrative?

This emptywheel post discusses Trump's Roger Stone problem. What is interesting here to me is that if one is going to claim that the Russian GRU was being framed by having these e-mails with Stone spoofed, then one might think Stone would claim such -- except that then he'd still have to explain who he thought he was talking to and about exactly what.

In the book Silent Coup, about removing Nixon from office, it is claimed that the real pressure came from forces that sound suspiciously like a Deep or Deepest State that was not happy about Nixons veiled threat to spill the beans on the JFK assassination via his direct comment about the Bay of Pigs.

Is this exposure of Dowd's dumb-ass message and Stone's reversal a means of applying pressure on Agent Orange to do what the script calls for, or else?
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As with everything in the Trump / Russia narrative .... caveat emptor!!!

The following excerpted article is a new unfolding in the drama that is leaving us on a knife edge, in a polarizing hall of mirrors.

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.
The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on Page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.
What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.
Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.
He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.
The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded. ...

Of course, we are in this position because the two political parties pitted the Great Pumpkin against Hillary, long a lightning rod to the various camps on the right - not to mention on the progressive left as well. With all of her 'issues' she has to have her own email server to conduct sensitive government business?

Fox News host Sean Hannity is getting criticized for hypocrisy after criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) comments about wanting to see President Trump in prison as "despicable," but essentially supporting the famous cheers from President Trump's rallies directed toward Hillary Clinton of "lock her up."
Hannity issued a fiery tirade against Pelosi, telling his viewers that her desire to see Trump "in prison" was "beyond despicable behavior" that occurs in "banana republics."
He said Pelosi wanted this to happen "based on no actual crimes," that this would turn the United States into a country people would no longer recognize.
The remarks were quickly seized upon by various reporters who noted Hannity's support for Trump and his calls for investigations into Clinton to be reopened.
Sean Hannity on Fox tonight, without any hint of irony: "Based on no actual crimes, [Pelosi] wants a political opponent locked up in prison. Umm, that happens in banana republics. Beyond despicable behavior."
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 7, 2019

The voters were left with a Hobson's Choice that has turned into a Trumpian Pissing Contest. With the polarized MSM, most news viewers are stovepiped into respective 'pissing contexts'. As Hillary had her base of blind sheep there are many Trumpistas that don't have clue what a beyond worthless piece of crap the Great Pumpkin is, on nearly every substantive level. They do know that he is sexually degenerate, but that is excusable, because they like his bombastic rhetoric. But they don't know just what a piece a crap businessman he is, with his Daddy and others (especially foreign interests) constantly having to rescue him.

As I have repeatedly discussed on this thread, we just witnessed Trump, with MSM commentary, demonstrate again that he can turn his behavioral act off and on, during his D-Day trip to Normandy. Because .... it's an act. Which, again, begs the question of how much of the larger tableau is an act?

Now, the House Dems are saying that they 'might' be able to issue a subpoena to Mueller in a couple of weeks. A couple of weeks? It's going to be an 'interesting' July 4th, as the Japanese and Bill Clinton would say.