Don’t try to swallow that camel all at once…
Sure. But since they do that in opposition to the facts, that makes them worthy of only derision.
I don’t appreciate any such thing. Republicans know full well that she wasn’t guilty of anything. But they know their base is so stupid that there are easy votes to be harvested by simply pretending that there are crimes of hers that should be prosected.
:eek: Not sure how I missed that. Sorry about both mistakes, then.
OK, now you seem to be making a distinction between “Republicans” and “their base”. In the context of the original point we’re discussing here - public support for prosecuting former politicians - this distinction is pointless, and “their base” are themselves “Republicans”. The point, again, is that public support for actually prosecuting Clinton even among those who believe she’s guilty of crimes - that being “Republicans” or “their base”, as you prefer - dropped once she lost the election.
OK.
I think we agree, Republican politicians know that investigation number 623 isn’t going to find anything prosecutable any more than the first 622 did. The Republican voters are convinced that there must be something to put her in jail for.
Not so fast. The Republican voters who are convinced of that were convinced *by *those Republican politicians. The gullible were misled by liars. And they still are.
I agree. The politicians knowingly lie to their base, knowing that the anti-Hillary hysteria can be extended indefinitely with no facts whatever. I’m pretty sure that Trey Gowdy knows that he’s just running a smoke machine, but he also knows that it has paid off handsomely for his party.
No, I meant it the way I said it. The President can’t be prosecuted at the federal level because he is the executive. He’d be, in effect, prosecuting himself.
At the state level, meanwhile, the Supremacy Clause wouldn’t come into effect at all unless there were some federal law which conflicts with state law, and I’m struggling to think of any federal law which could even plausibly exist that would work. Suppose a state wants to prosecute the President for tax evasion, for instance: Would there actually be a federal law that declares tax evasion not to be a crime?
The President does not have authority over the Justice Department in the way you think he does. Just look at what happens when he tries to shut down an investigation.
I understood exactly what you meant. When I said you had it backwards I meant you were wrong. 
The Supremacy Clause comes into play in that the state guy would be depriving the federal government of its chief executive.
It’s not my own argument. I cited to a pretty knowledgeable fellow (law professor and author etc.) writing in Newsweek. Here’s another link to some other experts cited as saying pretty much the same thing. (I’m not saying it’s settled law. But ISTM that state prosecution is shakier than federal, contrary to your assertion.)
Trump saying he is looking forward to speaking to Mueller under oath. I’m guessing that’s because he just found out that this has already been arranged and there is no getting out of it. Better to look like it is voluntary.
No doubt he will lie. No doubt the lies will be obvious. No doubt this will be way worse than Clinton lying about sex. No doubt the GOP won’t care.
The GOP won’t, but this will be invaluable to the independent and Democratic voters. It basically forces the GOP to either acknowledge that the Clinton impeachment was a partisan attack for something far less damaging than what Trump has done, or to explicitly state that the rules are different for Republicans.
Their base will eat up whatever lame excuse they offer, but it’s a watershed moment. There will no longer be any way for the GOP to claim that Trump “hasn’t done anything impeachable.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa…he said he’d be willing to talk, just as soon as the FBI interrogates Hillary Clinton under oath about her email server.
In other words: he’ll do it when hell freezes over. This was just empty talk on Trump’s part.
Based on historical trends the GOP won’t feel forced to admit anything, and will easily claim anything they want to. They don’t feel constrained by things like “facts” or “history”, because they’re not - they have a comfortable base ensconced in an echo chamber of transparent lies that inconvenient facts have no impact on.
And I’m betting they’re still counting on division and demoralization (and gerrymandering and physically blocking voters) to keep independent and democratic voter turnouts low. It worked for them last time, and there’s no chance in hell of them increasing their voter base without changing things that they clearly don’t intend to change.
That’s not to mention the admittedly annoying fact that no one gives a single goddamn about Slick anymore. That was a generation ago. The American public can’t remember last month, and doesn’t want to.
Just so we’re clear, Trump wasn’t obstructing justice, he was “fighting back” against the investigation. Big difference.
Jesus, this interview is just a perjury trap.
and all Clinton had was a blowjob.
How much time, money, and “effort” has been wasted on investigating her over nonexistent bullshit??? Enough already.
I say, if they can prove Trump’s money laundering, treason and collusion with the Russians, hang his sorry ass. During or after his so called presidency.
No difference. I don’t care how that fat orange filth describes it now today. He was interfering and obstructing. He ADMITTED IT AND WE ALL SAW IT, He fired Comey over “the Russia thing” because he wouldn’t back off and let the other scumbag traitor Flynn slide. Obstruction.
And it isn’t a perjury trap unless the “target” is a liar… and Trump always has been a liar.