Did Pelosi just un-invite Trump from the State of the Union?

That’s enough with the personal cracks.

From here on out this thread is under double secret supervision. Tolerance for personal shots at other posters is now zero tolerance.

I hope that’s clear to all.

I agree with this. I agree WRT Nixon wholeheartedly. However, my position regarding Clinton has evolved.

First, unquestionably he was a skirt chaser. But I think it is fair to say that the country knew that when he was elected. Further, I have no problem with Paula Jones et al. pursuing their claims of sexual harassment against him.

But I feel that it is unfair and irrelevant in a sexual harassment lawsuit to question a defendant about unquestionably consensual sexual conduct. Just because I have dated three people at the office does not make it more or less likely that I sexually harassed a fourth.

Also, after watching the behind the scenes A&E documentary, it was clear that Starr was not acting as a neutral “we will prosecute if we find something” prosecutor. He was attempting to find anything at all to nail Clinton for. He knew about the stained dress, yet allowed Clinton to give the deposition that arguably amounted to perjury.

I know that it happens all of the time in criminal law, but I think that it is fundamentally unfair. I fully believe that if a federal prosecutor looked into any of our lives and had a virtually unlimited budget, he could find some federal law that we violated. There is anecdotal evidence that federal prosecutors are trained by this method: Here is person X. Find a crime we could indict them for if we wanted to.

The amount of federal laws are absolutely staggering and in recent years, the penalties have become even more staggering. The only reason that the system has not made felons out of us all is the (for now) restraint and budgets of the U.S. Attorneys.

People who come into high office should not also be fitted with a target on their backs as if they are subject to this prosecutorial exercise. In the future, we can expect one of continuing investigations. I know the left will argue that payback’s a bitch, but at some point, we need a functioning government again.

It is amazing how Trump has been in the public eye since the early 1980s, but from then until 2016 he was not suspected of any crimes. Only when he entered the political arena is he now a “criminal.”

At some point, the madness has to stop, even if we make Ken Starr the fall guy for starting it.

You have a valid point that virtually nobody could survive a full-throttle federal investigation, but Donald Trump is not the poster boy for innocence. Well before his election, Trump University was being investigated for fraudulent practices and it is far from his only brush with questionable activity.

Maybe you didn’t hear about any of Trump’s crimes, but there have been fraud cases against him forever. And the biggest crimes folks are looking at now are the ones he committed as part of his political career.

Just like how Clinton was known as a skirt chaser, I think it was equally well known that Trump the businessman kicked the ball back in the fairway many times when it came to ethics. But, and I stand to be corrected, I don’t recall any crimes that he was suspected of.

Yes, the Trump University nonsense was investigated for civil fraud, and just like most online degree programs, should have been nipped in the bud more harshly. Also, it is terribly unseemly that the president is paying off porn stars to keep his reputation intact or that a president is getting blow jobs from a young intern.

But I take issue with the disrespect of the President of the United States. I have no issue with any disrespect of Donald Trump, the individual. But as he was fairly elected by the rules, he deserves the respect of the office he holds in that capacity. Posters in this thread liking the idea of the President being disinvited to the SOTU address is a terrible thing.

Is protecting the dignity of the office in any way his own responsibility?

Exactly. The charges of racial discrimination, for example, predated his presidential run by decades. His long record of racism, fraud, and slimey connections seem to only be a surprise to his base.

Why?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but: as far as I can tell, presidents get to deliver a speech at that location only if officially given permission to do so by folks with the relevant authority.

And so, if that permission isn’t forthcoming, then — so what? He’s a president, not a king; if I were serving in the military, then, sure, he’d get a salute from me and then some — but what respect do you figure he’s entitled to from me while I’m a private citizen, or from Pelosi while she’s an elected official, or from anyone else who doesn’t have to salute him?

This would be a great time to get rid of the pomp and circumstance of the SOTU, which is more in line with a monarchy than with a government where the politicians are supposed to be regular citizens like everyone else.

Trump should deliver the SOTU on camera, from the oval office. Or better yet, do what historically was done and deliver it to congress by letter, and deny all of those vultures the TV exposure they crave. The SOTU spectacle has essentially turned into an awards show for ugly people.

Oh, bullshit.
Once Trump starts to respect the office of the President, maybe people will respect him.
When he starts to represent the People of the United States, and not just himself and a handful of sycophants, maybe he will get invited to some of the cool parties.

I’m pretty sure it was investigated for actual fraud, among other crimes. This particular variant of what-aboutism strains credibility.

By the way, the investigations have absolutely zero to do with our non-functioning government. That has everything to do with the skills and positions of the President: he’s the worst negotiator in the history of DC, and his policies are aimed primarily at dividing people for no other reason than his own perception of winning.

So don’t blame a professionally-led effort to hold politicians accountable for your dislike of the current state of affairs. If anything, the Muller investigation is an example of how DC should work.

In Florida, the case was dropped when Trump made a conveniently timed major campaign donation to AG Pam Bondi.

Absolutely. If you or anyone believes he has done those things, you are free to point them out and complain about them. What I think is a step too far is to disrespect the office because of the current occupant. It will just lead to the same thing happening to the next Democratic president because someone else believes that he or she has not acted with sufficient dignity.

I agree and have thought so for some time. But it should not be done in this type of partisan way.

Do you think that, if true, it is a secret known only to you? You don’t think that Mueller has heard about it or anyone else? If there is evidence of this, why don’t you present it to Congress so that they can begin the impeachment process forthwith?

OR, perhaps, this is just another bit of unproven rumor mongering with no evidence?

I daresay you have been sufficiently corrected on this point, unless you wish to start minutely parsing the word “recall”.

:eek: I’m gonna hand this part of your post the “Cluelessly Wrong In Every Way or Maliciously Denying Reality?” Award for January 2019; congratulations!

  1. “If”? :rolleyes:
  2. Why are you putting the responsibility elsewhere than on him?

If *you *see somebody doing that, please say so.

As for bribing his way out of the Florida charges re Trump University, apparently this is news to you. So, learn: https://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-pam-bondi-and-25k-was-it-pay-play/

Like, say, when Trump himself disrespects the office?

Such as, making purely partisan politics comments in front of nonpartisan officers of the Government, such as bragging about his electoral win to at the CIA or talking about how Democrats have gone off the deep end during a speech to troops at the Pentagon.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.