Politics Watergate lawyer drafted in for Trump-Russia investigation

[Denny Crane]

I

I have never argued her suitability but indeed agreed that she was a very poor candidate for the office, which I reaffirm here. you stated that the illegal interfereance in the elections were a good thing in your opinion, partially justified because of your opinion of Clinton's unfitness for office. you believed as stated , that regardless of means, it was justifiable as long as she was denied the office. part of the mechanism that denied her election was the results of a foreign, nay enemy, nation engaging in illegal actions to prevent her from gaining office. do you defend russia's right to interfere in our election process? is it a constitutional right of the Russians to do so? is it also not true that by our very discussion here that they have succeeded in undermining the confidence of future elections? my point about the tightness of the race and how truly small the margin of victory was in key states only exacberates this. if they were successful in swaying a very small number of voters in a targeted espionage operation against our process than the rights and protections to the value of each individuals vote is eroded and violated. by your saying what ever the means to keep her out, even if they were as described flies in the face of valueing the process of electing our president. if its ok as long as it was Clinton, how loud would be your wailing about a president that you abhor for all intents and purposes. I don't hate trump, didn't like Clinton but I am fired up about foreign interference in MY country's election.

I said the Russians didn't write the emails. What they post on the internet is not under our control. We have the right to read it. Clnton had $1B to get her message out. Plus $millions, if not $billions, in free advertising and PR.

I question the Russian involvement at the level that's being claimed, though. The government is asked to provide certain proof, but won't. Like McCarthy and his secret papers that proved the army was infested with commies.

The race was swinging Trump's way before the emails on WikiLeaks. There's been not an iota of evidence that the Russians somehow affected the result. None. Nada. Zilch.

Those WikiLeaks emails prove there was significant collusion between Clinton and the media. That hasn't stopped when the election was lost. They weren't colluding to make a fair election; it broke the campaign finance laws where companies and individuals are limited in their contributions to a candidate.

You're saying by whatever means to nullify the election, no? Where do you draw the line, if any?

 

[barfo]

Yes it does.

Oh, well, that's a good argument. Very convincing.

If it nullifies the election, how come Pence gets to be President?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, well, that's a good argument. Very convincing.

If it nullifies the election, how come Pence gets to be President?

barfo

The people didn't vote for Pence to be president.

Maybe in 8 years they will.

 

[Denny Crane]

More disappointment for CNN and the rest.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336741-dem-leaders-reject-impeachment-push

Top Dems reject impeachment push

House Democratic leaders are rebuffing the growing push from their liberal members to move toward impeaching President Trump, warning that the nascent effort is premature and might undermine ongoing investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.

“We have to find out what the facts are,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which is conducting one of the multiple probes into Russia’s election meddling and possible ties to the Trump campaign.

“The hearings this week are going to be very important to understand what role the president played in the effort to derail any part of the Russia investigation, as has been alleged,” he added, referring to a pair of Senate Intelligence Committee hearings happening this week. “But I don’t want to leap to any conclusions about what we’ll ultimately find or what the consequences should be.

“We’re still very early in the investigative process.”
Rep. Linda Sánchez (Calif.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Schiff’s view reflects the “overwhelming sentiment” among the Democrats.

“A majority of the Caucus is of the belief that we ought to allow the investigation to continue to its logical conclusion before making any determination,” she told reporters in the Capitol.

The comments come just hours before Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) is set to announce that he’s drafting articles of impeachment related to Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey.

Comey was leading the administration’s investigation into the Russia affair and had reportedly rebuffed entreaties by the president to drop elements of the probe — a refusal that led to his firing. Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate Intel Committee on Thursday.

Green contends the Comey firing represents an impeachment-worthy case of obstruction of justice.

“Obstruction of justice by the President is the problem,” he said Tuesday night in a statement. “Impeachment by Congress is the solution.”

It’s unclear if other Democrats will support Green’s effort. Green declined to comment Wednesday morning, and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), another vocal supporter of working to impeach Trump, also deflected questions.

“I have not even thought about it,” Waters told The Hill.