The United States was not designed to withstand the sort of authoritarian onslaught we’re seeing from Donald Trump, former CIA analyst Nada Bakos warned on Wednesday night.
The only thing burning is part of the deep state. Slow and steady, but much, much further to go. At least 20 members of the Clinton/Obama team need to do some serious jail time for treason.
Sieg Heil !!
Can you elaborate on just what portions of the constitution you feel have been violated?
TIA.
If you really wanted to know how Trump has violated the constitution you could simply google it and learn all about it, but you don't really care, you'd continue to support him even if he was to wipe his a$$ with the constitution and the flag & burn them both live on the Hannity Show.
Just for grins, I googled it & got 4,960,000 results in .42 seconds.
Here's one article out of the 4,960,000 articles on the subject. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430
This is why debate with you is so entertaining. You really have no concept of the difference between fact and opinion. Essentially, if you like an opinion, it becomes a fact in your mind.
Your article cites assorted charges made by dems based on opinions. The article lead with "Obstruction of Justice" where Trump performed his constitutional right in firing Comey. I can find dozens of articles justifying this action as legal and right that make far better arguments than anything you have provided so far. But in no way can you make an argument that he violated the constitution based on any known facts.
It goes on to cite Trump with inciting "Racism" and "Xenophobia", etc, etc ad nauseum. If you could substantiate any of it, which you can't, outside of using baseless opinions that you like, you would be hard pressed to find a violation of the constitution.
The article goes on with more of the same.
If you think a google search on "Trump Violated Constitution" returning multiple hits proves Trump violated the constitution, why not try "Obama Violated Constitution". It may break your browser.
"Your article cites assorted charges made by dems based on opinions. The article lead with "Obstruction of Justice" where Trump performed his constitutional right in firing Comey."
Fact: Trump admitted in an interview with Lester Holt on nationwide TV that he fired Comey to try & put an end to the Russian investigation. That is the very definition of obstruction of justice.
"It goes on to cite Trump with inciting "Racism" and "Xenophobia", etc, etc ad nauseum. "
You would have had to be living in a cave, or be deaf dumb & blind to not think that Trump is a racist & a xenophobe & has incited his followers to show their racist colors. About 62% of Americans polled think that he's a racist. I know you haven't been living in a cave & you're not deaf, dumb & blind. So you are in a serious state of denial about Trumps racism & xenophobia. You know it, I know, & everybody knows it, so if you were a real standup guy you'd come clean & admit it. But we both know you're not a standup guy, & won't ever fess up.
Well, of course, I don't subscribe to the lefts "new and improved" definition of racism. i.e. where a straight white male criticizes the actions or words of any protected minority.
But calling hellholes "hellholes" is not racist.
Calling rapists "rapists" is not racist.
Wanting secure borders is no more racist than you locking your front door.
I'm sure you miss the point, but most would not.
Finally, your debate on how "Obvious" the case for obstruction is still based on opinion and I can supply dozens of opinion articles that make a great legal argument as to why it does not meet the criteria. But to reiterate, facts are opinions you like. Conversely, lies are opinions you don't like. It's a topsy turvey world where you live.,
"Finally, your debate on how "Obvious" the case for obstruction is still based on opinion and I can supply dozens of opinion articles that make a great legal argument as to why it does not meet the criteria."
Only in the bizarre world of a criminally insane fascist Trump supporter would admitting that you deliberately fired the FBI director to end his investigation of you and your criminal regime would that not be obstruction of justice.
Go ahead & post those "dozens" of articles that "make a great legal argument as to why it does not meet the criteria. I double dog dare you."
I don't think labeling a poster as "criminally insane fascist Trump supporter" meets forum guidelines, but it's the sort of infantile ranting we've come to expect from you Mojo, so, what the heck. Your posts largely provide a source of entertainment, but little or no substance.
In the interest of fairness, I provided 2 articles. One raises the question of obstruction and answers as "Maybe". The 2nd makes a compelling argument that there is not. I could provide many more of the "definitely not", but, at the end of the day, if you read and comprehend them, tomorrow you'll still be posting nonsense based on the wishful thinking so prevalent on the left.
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/8/15742880/donald-trump-james-comey-fbi-russia-investigation
“In general,” he continued, “obstruction of justice is broadly defined as corruptly influencing or impeding a federal proceedings.” What actually counts as a “federal proceeding” remains a matter of controversy, and one that bears heavily on this case.
We don’t yet know if there was a grand jury hearing concerning the Russia investigation. If there was, Trump almost certainly obstructed justice. If, however, there was only a FBI investigation, Garrett and others I spoke with agree it’s not clear that obstruction of justice charges are applicable.
BTW, when dozens of "prominent" dems called for Comey's firing, was that obstruction as well?