Lurker > red sox 777

I haven't seen any evidence of any obstruction of the investigation, if that's what it means. Unless obstruction now is equivalent to making a defense, in which case it most certainly is not a crime.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Obstruction of Congress by the President is not a crime. I don't think any jury is going to convict a President of obstructing Congress, anymore than they are going to convict Nancy Pelosi of obstructing the President.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

Reminder that in Corriks mind, we need to start with the assumption that everything Trump does in office is intended to benefit the American people because thats his job.

I dont see how you could possibly twist this whole thing to support that assumption. There is no reading of this where Trump is not at the very least putting his own wants ahead of the American people, who voted directly for Representatives that approved this aid, and who do not want elections influenced by foreign powers

You assume that the American People do not want their elections influenced by foreign powers. But at this point the Republican Party could probably run Vladimir Putin in 2024 and he'd win at least 150 electoral votes.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

So then Ukraine is guilty of something here then as well?

Assuming accurate portrayal. How do we deal with Ukraine then?

Assuming accurate portrayal Trump proposed to enter into a conspiracy with Ukraine, which was not accepted by Ukraine. So Ukraine would not have committed any crime. I feel like the idea of charging someone for attempted conspiracy to commit a crime has probably been discussed in caselaw but I haven't looked at this since law school and can't remember what the analysis is.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Didn't President Zelenskiy campaign on ending corruption in Ukraine? Can he promise us that any investigation of the Bidens would have been fair? If so, I think there's no crime, no wrongdoing, here.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

Idk. I mean, probably. But, I dunno if Biden isn't gonna fall apart in the general. Sanders is probably the best bet for Dems or Bloomberg.

Biden will very likely fall apart in the general under pressure from Trump.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The latter

Yup. And if Hillary gets in the race, she's winning the nomination and the Democrats are doomed.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

"High crimes and misdemeanors" sounds like a crime is required.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

When Mitch McConnell does it, it's because he has a grand plan to win for America. When the Democrats do it, it's obstruction.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Enough Democrats know that USMCA is an improvement on NAFTA to do the right thing and vote for it.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The State of Kentucky has an interest in making sure its residents receive good healthcare. And that includes receiving enough information to make an informed decision for a choice they will never be able to undo.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Maniac64 posted...

Not if that is the school's curriculum. She has the right to tell students she disagrees but she still has to teach the curriculum.

If she feels she cant do that then she shouldn't be teaching the class.

And this is the state of Kentucky's prescribed course of medicine.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

So for those who disagree with this decision, how would you feel about a teacher being ordered to teach evolution to her students? Doesn't she have the right to refuse to speak?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Regarding the Afghanistan report......I'm glad at least the government knew things were going badly. Everyone without blinders on knew that already.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Red sox, in your opinion would you also automatically add a +2 to Trump in any of the state poll averages for 2020? One could argue that the environment is even more in favor of ostracizing Trump supporters now

I'm not sure. That should be the kind of thing that pollsters are working diligently to correct, after it happened in 3 elections in a row (UK 2015 General, Brexit 2016, US 2016). Also, the fact that Trump won his election may give some supporters the emotional cover they need to answer that yes, they are voting for him again.

I think it's very possible that the country is more divided now than in 2016 by state, and CA and NY will produce even huger landslides against Trump than last time, aided by very loose voting procedures that allow a high percentage of people to vote (vote by mail, for instance). So, it's possible that the Democrat may need to win the popular vote by 4 points this time to break even in the EC, whereas in 2016 the mark was +3 and Hillary got +2.

Incidentally, Democrats have run strongly in special elections in deep red states after 2016 - Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. Strong performance by Democrats in red states also increases themargin by which they have to win the national popular vote to win the EC. Because they won't carry those red states, so those strong performances will be for naught, but strong performances there will increase their share of the national popular vote.

If we get this effect going from Democratic gains in both blue states and red states while not seeing such a gain in the swing states we could potentially see a Democrat win the national popular vote by as much as 5 points and still lose. That would really be something and would serve the Democrats right for their view of the country as hopelessly divided into 2 irreconcilable camps only - if they made big gains in both of those 2 camps and still lost.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Nadler says that in his opinion if they presented their case to a jury, the jury would take about 3 minutes to convict. I mean, 3 minutes might be right - but the vote will be for acquittal when this case is presented to the jury that will hear it!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Biggest Moment/Event of the 2010s: Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election
Runners Up: Brexit vote results, Death of Osama bin Laden, Tohuku earthquake/Fukushima nuclear disaster, Obergefell v. Hodges decision

Every decade has at least one moment that everyone will remember exactly where they were when it happened. Some are tragic events like 9/11 in the 2000s, some are triumphs like the moon landing in the 1960s, while others are moments that just feel like a culture-defining culmination--like the OJ Simpson verdict in the 1990s. The election of President Trump is basically all three of those things wrapped into one.

I can't think of anything else that happened this decade that really comes close to that universal "holy shit" moment when we realized that Trump was going to defeat Hillary. We had months and months of completely insane campaign moments, times when his candidacy felt dead and buried and Hillary was going to make herstory. Everyone in the media told us it was a foregone conclusion. Every Hillary supporter was smugly coming to work that day wearing "my president is a GIRL" shirts, high-fiving each other and thanking the heavens that the GOP voters nominated the most uncouth presidential candidate of all time.

I remember having the news playing at home in the background that night. I was so angry from the primary that I didn't care what happened; and like everyone except for red sox and ulti, I just assumed that Hillary was going to win. All that mattered was holding the senate. I had CNN on because the FoxNews app wasn't streaming to chromecast correctly. And I am glad I did. Because the results came rolling in, and the media started to have a collective meltdown.

Florida and North Carolina went to Trump. Okay, I thought. I guess it'll be closer, but those are really just red states that Obama carried unexpectedly. Then Ohio results came in and Trump was up by like ten points. Holy fuck, if things stay like this... he might actually have a chance. Then Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were all trending red, and everyone started to realize it was over. We were living through the single greatest political upset in the history of the United States.

I still remember my subway ride to work the next day. I live in a particularly liberal part of Brooklyn, and you would have thought someone nuked the city. Half the people must have called in sick. Those who went in were dead silent, shell-shocked as they hung their heads and moved on with their lives knowing that Donald Trump was the President Elect.

There were countless post mortems following this day, but it can't be understated how momentous that election was. That is not to say President Trump is transforming the nation or that he'll have a policy impact to the scale of FDR or Lincoln. The change isn't in the result itself, but how we perceive politics and how we perceive the media. His election was a stark reminder that the Internet and social media are not indicative of the feelings of the nation. It was a reminder that the media is and has always been more about their own perception than a reflection of reality. And it was a turning point in American discourse and politics--that a man who campaigned on being an outsider draining the swamp is actually what the people wanted. And we're still dealing with those repercussions today.

I felt so vindicated that night. The polling was showing a very close race of course and the real possibility of Trump winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. If there was any kind of polling error on the lines of the Brexit polls, where the actual outcome was +4 for Leave vs. a virtual tie in the polls, Trump was going to win. I thought there were good reasons to believe that the polls would be off, because never had I seen such an oppressive environment where people were being ostracized for supporting a Republican presidential candidate. The Brexit vote was of course the relevant analog again.

On a personal and anecdotal level, a coworker of working class Mexican heritage told me not long before the election that in his opinion, Trump probably knew how much bananas cost, while Hillary definitely did not. He didn't say he was voting for Trump but he was being perceived as being in touch while HRC was out of touch...wow! Of course it was an anecdote but it was consistent with other anecdotes and the polls, which turned out to be much closer than the Brexit polls but still slanted enough to Hillary that it was enough for Trump to win.


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Alternately, how about convening a grand jury in say, the Texas Panhandle and turn the political investigations over to them, without a prosecutor spoonfeeding them info? Encourage them to issue subpoenas and get their own evidence. If they indict Trump related people, bring them to trial; if they indict Hillary, bring her to trial. If they return no true bills, don't indict anyone.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

So when does the investigation of the Inspector General start?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

For any British B8ers: from what I can tell, Boris is very likely to remain the Prime Minister because Labour (and Corbyn in particular) have a disturbing history of tolerating anti-Semitism. Given this, a few questions:

1. Why doesnt Labour dump Corbyn if hes such an electoral burden?
2. Why are the Lib Dems generally not considered a viable alternative?

I am not British but I seriously doubt that is the reason Labour is probably going to lose the election. Maybe it could push a few undecideds over but most won't give such accusations serious consideration and the election does not look close.

And Lib Dems are seen as a viable alternative, which is exactly the problem with the remain vote - they have 2 longstanding parties with a history of winning seats in Parliament to vote for, while virtually the whole leave vote has coalesced around the Tories. The Brexit Party has collapsed in the polls as people see the best way to ensure the UK leaves is to vote Tory.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

The polls werent that wrong (national polls, at least). They were like Hillary +3 and she got +2, and 538 gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. It came as a shock because many people (including most pundits) thought that it was impossible that America would elect a man so obviously unqualified on every level.

Yeah, this is true. The polls were pretty close. People were just willfully blind to the fact that Hillary needed +3 to win, not 0 + 1 vote

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

This is a policy I can get behind

After being born is illegal, babies will go straight from the hospital to jail. Except for those pardoned by President Trump.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I am arguing that Amazon doesn't pay taxes, has horrible history with workers, refuses to be a part of a union, and we should not be giving them money.

1500 free market jobs is much better than 25000 jobs subsidized by the taxpayers. Given how mobile society is today a big share of those jobs are not going to end up with native New Yorkers anyway.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This is very close to mine and I pay $0 for my healthcare.

Sounds like you have incredible employer-provided healthcare, in which case your employer would probably have to increase your wages if they stop providing you that benefit.

It depends on whether your employer's taxes are going up under the Bernie plan. They probably are so you might not get it back in the form of a raise.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Honestly, right now we have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. If there is ever a good time to stand up to evil corporations, it's now.

Incidentally, drove past Amazon HQ in Seattle at night recently. It has all the charm of Stamford, Connecticut or Jersey City, so it's like they're already in an NYC suburb.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I appreciate the honesty from Bernie btw. He could have set it up so that only the 1% would get lower on the calculator, but that would be not very believable.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

My disposable income would be lower mainly because my employer pays for my health insurance currently. Not a surprise and not a big deal.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1203093051859750912?s=21

Bravo! That's the leadership the Democratic Party needs. Hillary would have taken a million dollars to give a couple speeches to Amazon execs and approved the subsidies.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

They might have killed the hostage anyway, but they might not have. What advantage is there to killing a hostage?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/MaxGhenis/status/1202844446187909122

This is a terrible move, and in contrast to this dude I'm feeling pretty justified in my one non-Dem vote last election. Insurance is supposed to be about mitigating risk, not subsidizing near-guaranteed risk; removing disincentives to living in areas that are going to go up in flames every few years is dangerous and not in anyones' interest.

A rare occasion on which LOTM and I agree.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Impeaching a Democratic President sounds like a great Christmas gift to the American People.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

With President Trump's impeachment looking likely, the House will have impeached 2 of the last 4 presidents. Republicans will likely feel motivated to retaliate against any impeachment of President Trump by impeaching the next Democrat to hold the office. Will he or she be impeached?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/elizacollins1/status/1202982470695686144?s=21

LOL yeah right Pete

Can't blame him too much for working for McKinsey if he doesn't come from a rich background. What's a young person without a lot of money and with a fancy Harvard degree to do during the worst recession in decades?

It doesn't mean he supported them then or now. Quite a different thing from Hillary who continued receiving money (in much larger sums) from the banking industry long after she was already rich.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Heavily disagree. Having no shame doesnt mean you cant be afraid of consequences for your secrets being exposed. Trump has, for example, desperately tried to avoid having his tax returns released.

There are no consequences. Trump doesn't release the tax returns in order to bait Democrats into talking about it. Instead of establishing themselves as the party of labor, or justice, or healthcare, or peace, or any number of things they jump to be the party of invading privacy by wanting to look at other people's tax return.

The Democrats fall for it over and over and over.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1202767133538684928?s=21

Not surprising, but amazing that no one seems to care that every country with surveillance capabilities can probably blackmail the president

This president openly admits everything. He cannot be blackmailed.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And I guess if there is no VP or he abstains....the CJ maybe could cast a true tiebreak vote....where the result is 50-50 (1-0) rather than 51-50. But I guess CJ Roberts will have to decide this very tricky business as there's no great precedent for this!


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

Maybe.

I think the Constitution is unclear here.

Article I Section 3

I feel like you can read this validly either as:

1. The VP's tiebreaker role is executed through his role of the presiding officer of the US Senate - the title "President of the Senate." Since the Chief Justice is explicitly named the presiding officer in the event of a Presidential Impeachment Trial that authority - which resides with the presiding officer - lies with him in this very specific instance.
2. The above is reading too much into it.
Now, obviously I favor interpretation 1, but I'm not a lawyer and won't claim that my interpretation there is correct.

I think it is legitimately an open legal question what occurs in that situation. Nonetheless, I feel like if 2 were the correct reading that Chief Justice Chase would simply have lacked the authority to vote there at all and the tie would have stood. There not being a VP at the time didn't magically make him VP at that moment to cast those tiebreakers. If you want to argue he was acting unconstitutionally, so be it!

So the problem with 1 is, I think, the president pro tempore and other presiding officers of the Senate do not have tiebreaking powers. So it seems the tiebreaking vote does not run with being presiding officer.

The way it's literally written (shall have no vote except) seems to imply the VP's vote is not a true tiebreak vote at all - it counts the same as the vote of any other member of the Senate, but he may not cast it unless they are equally divided.

This interpretation is consistent with the tiebreaking power of the Speaker of the British House of Commons. He casts no vote unless the sides are equally divided and then he has a vote to cast because he is a Member. If that's the precedent the framers followed, then the Chief Justice cannot break a tie because he is not a member of the Senate and no normal presiding officer other than the VP can break a tie because they would be casting a 2nd vote.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

I don't really have a good lead-in for this, but I saw this earlier today and thought it was an interesting read and could be helpful for anyone curious about the procedures and mechanics that are likely to be in play for a Senate Impeachment trial:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation

Lawfare wrote up a piece examining the Senate's current rules for impeachment and how it would work out, as well as hypothesizing over some tactics each party may use, and answers some questions along the way like "Could Senate Republicans really turn things into a Biden investigation and call Hunter Biden or Schiff or whoever to the stand?" (Answer: ...Probably? Might depend on what Roberts says though.) It's a bit lengthy but worth the read IMO.

Some of the bigger points IMO:

-Roberts isn't truly the judge here. He is simply made the presiding officer of the Senate for the trial. The Senators themselves play the role of both judge and jury.

-Roberts may rule on questions of evidence like relevancy but he does not have to. Furthermore, even should he make a ruling, any Senator may call for a vote on the question and the Senate votes on it and that result is the final decision. Roberts can also simply punt such questions directly to a Senate vote if he doesn't want to rule himself.

-There's a twist wherein you need 67 votes to change a rule rather than 51. So if a motion can't be made to be reconciled with the existing rules you would need 67 votes to waive or change said rule.

-The Senate can motion to adjourn the trial sine die (basically dismiss the case.)

-You would need 51 votes to call witnesses

-It's not entirely clear what occurs in a 50-50 tie here. Obviously that's normally broken by Pence but because of the conflict of interest, it's Roberts who is the presiding officer of the Senate for the trial, not Pence. Precedent suggests Roberts is the tiebreaker as during the Johnson impeachment the Chief Justice broke two ties. It's a fringe case, but in cases where Roberts sides with the Democrats it would mean they would only need 3 flips to uphold such rulings instead of 4.

Ah cool, I'm glad to hear it clarified that the whole Senate acts as judge and not only as jury. I think we are looking at a very productive trial then where Biden, Comey, etc. can finally be put on trial. Maybe even Hillary...


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If Hillary could somehow contrive of a way to credibly endorse Trump, that could sink his candidacy. But no one would believe her if she said she honestly supported him.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

I knew Mondale was alive because I saw that he had endorsed Klobuchar a while back!

Actually now Im wondering if Bush endorsing the Dem in the general would matter (...and if so, in which direction)

It would help Trump. He isn't Republican Party leader anymore but most non-Republicans still think he was a bad president.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

I will admit that the pushups/IQ test thing was embarrassing, though

I don't think that's too damaging, but "you're too old to vote for me" is bad.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

So North Korea, which previously threatened nuclear war, is now threatening.....to send personal insults about the US President if they don't get what they want.

Trump needs a Nobel peace prize. Who could have predicted such a radical change from North Korea!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Who has the best temperament?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I will say, the ability to feel anger isn't necessarily a bad thing.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Trump's sociopathic ability to shrug off insults without letting it get to him really contrasts with Biden losing his temper over this.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

CA also votes in June, right? It will have long been over by then.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

For Chris.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-howard-stern/index.html

I would expect an article like that from Yahoo News reporting on Game of Throne speculation. CNN has sunk really really far.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

banananor posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Donald Trump may be personally guilty, but the People are still entitled to their President.

What does this sentence mean?

Suppose Donald Trump intentionally shot someone on Fifth Avenue and he is convicted by a jury of 12. What happens next? Should the democratic will of 300 million people be overturned by a jury of 12 people? Should he not remain as President for his term of office?

What if he didn't shoot someone, but drove 1 mph over the speed limit. He's definitely guilty, but should he be removed from office? Since he was elected by the People, only the People can remove him - and that is why the Senate and not any regular court or regular jury tries impeachment trials.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And indeed, Roman consuls were absolutely immune from prosecution while they held the office.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Seems kinda weird then that all of Trump's Congressional allies are whining about the fact that the House majority is exercising this Constitutionally mandated check (claiming that it's illegitimate) rather than criticizing Trump for obstructing the investigation at every turn (particularly in directing people not to testify due to a non-existent purported "absolute privilege")!

It's not constitutionally mandated, it's discretionary. The Senate will decide who is in the right. As for absolute privilege, some combination of the Supreme Court and the Senate will decide that.

I do think high officials need a certain level of immunity in order to function properly - this is why members of Congress have an absolute immunity to read classified information into the record on the floor of the House or Senate. You need to be able to separate out the person from the office. Donald Trump may be personally guilty, but the People are still entitled to their President.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!