CHECKS AND BALANCES

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

If you're a conservative, what's not to like about these Republicans and their views?

"CHECKS AND BALANCES

ABOUT
Mission Statement
We are a group of attorneys who would traditionally be considered conservative or libertarian. We believe in the rule of law, the power of truth, the independence of the criminal justice system, the imperative of individual rights, and the necessity of civil discourse. We believe these principles apply regardless of the party or persons in power. We believe in “a government of laws, not of men.”

We believe in the Constitution. We believe in free speech, a free press, separation of powers, and limited government. We have faith in the resiliency of the American experiment. We seek to provide a voice and a network for like-minded attorneys to discuss these ideas, and we hope that they will join with us to stand up for these principles.

WHO WE ARE
Jonathan H. Adler
Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Senior fellow at the Property & Environment Research Center and the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law.

Donald B. Ayer
Deputy Attorney General, 1989-1990. Principal Deputy Solicitor General, 1986-1988. U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, 1981-1986.

C. Frederick Beckner III
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 2006-2009. Former Clerk to Samuel Alito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

John B. Bellinger, III
Legal Advisor to Department of State, 2005-2009. Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council 2001-2005.

Phillip D. Brady
White House Staff Secretary, 1991-1993. White House Cabinet Secretary, 1989. Deputy Counsel to President Ronald Reagan. Deputy Assistant to Vice President George H. W. Bush, 1985-1988. Acting Assistant Attorney General, 1984-1985. Associate Attorney General, 1983-1984.

George T. Conway III
Securities and Corporate Litigation at Wachtell, Lipton. Argued successfully before the Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Declined nomination as assistant attorney general in 2017.

Carrie F. Cordero
Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow & General Counsel, Center for a New American Security. Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Senior Associate General Counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney Advisor at the U.S. Department of Justice, 2003-2010.

Charles Fried
Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Solicitor General, 1985-1989. Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1995-1999.

Stuart M. Gerson
Acting Attorney General, 1993. Assistant Attorney General, 1989-1993.

Peter D. Keisler
Acting Attorney General, 2007. Assistant Attorney General, 2003-2007. Acting Associate Attorney General, 2002-2003.

Orin S. Kerr
Frances R. and John J. Duggan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Trial Attorney, Department of Justice Criminal Division, 1998-2001.

Marisa C. Maleck
Appellate, Constitutional, and Administrative Law at King & Spalding. Former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Trevor Potter
President, Campaign Legal Center; Federal Election Commissioner (1991-1995) and Chairman (1994); Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice (1982-1984)

Alan Charles Raul
Former Vice-Chairman of the White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Former General Counsel to the Office of Management and Budget. Former General Counsel to the Department of Agriculture. Former Associate Counsel to the President.

Tom Ridge
Secretary of Homeland Security, 2003-2005. Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, 2001-2003. Governor of Pennsylvania.

Paul Rosenzweig
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2009.

Ilya Somin
Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

J.W. Verret
Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Former Chief Economist and Senior Counsel to the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.
Each of us speaks and acts solely in our individual capacities, and our views should not be attributed to any organization we may be affiliated with."


Copyright 2019 Checks and Balances. All Rights Reserved. Media contact: media@checks-and-balances.org

 

[WebSpinner]

really exciting so guess you guys are really ticked off at our government utilizing our intelligence and law enforcement arms to attempt to overturn a free and fair election. not about unelected bureaucrats, it is about the law and elections, not coups. glad you guys are onboard with cleaning those people out of our government and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law. thanks for being there for us.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

really exciting so guess you guys are really ticked off at our government utilizing our intelligence and law enforcement arms to attempt to overturn a free and fair election. not about unelected bureaucrats, it is about the law and elections, not coups. glad you guys are onboard with cleaning those people out of our government and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law. thanks for being there for us.

Nope. That's a bad read Mr. WebSpinner. Though I am not a member of this exalted group of highly respected Republicans, two of which were part of the Trump transition team, I agree with them wholeheartedly.

"Press Release
NEW STATEMENT FROM CHECKS AND BALANCES
ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ABUSE OF OFFICE
October 10, 2019
Statement from co-founders and additional members of Checks & Balances:

In the past several weeks, it has become clear to any observer of current events that the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal political objectives. Although new facts are being revealed on a daily basis, the following are undisputed, to date:

1) In a July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine – a summary of which has been released by the White House – the president requested “a favor” in the context of a discussion of Ukrainian security matters. Specifically, immediately after President Zelensky thanked the president “in the area of defense” and indicated a readiness to buy additional armaments consistent with a U.S. defense proposal, President Trump asked for “a favor.” The favor was to investigate a baseless theory relating to the 2016 investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. The U.S. president further requested that the Ukrainian president coordinate the requested investigation with both his personal attorney and the Attorney General of the United States, presenting both a blurring of lines between personal legal representation and official U.S. government business, and, the appearance of inappropriate politicization of the Office of the Attorney General. He then requested, additionally, that the Ukrainian government look into allegations relating to his Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, saying “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”

2) Between July and September 2019, the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, the (former) State Department Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and the Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, exchanged a series of telephone calls and text messages revealing that U.S. diplomats were involved in negotiating an exchange involving a White House meeting and foreign aid on one hand, and a Ukrainian investigation into a meritless allegation involving former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand. The text messages reveal that U.S. diplomats were seeking from President Zelensky an assurance that “he will help [the] investigation” while concurrently negotiating a “visit to Washington” and “security assistance.” These circumstances led career Ambassador Taylor to communicate that in his judgment it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” These facts are derived from text messages provided to the House of Representatives in connection with the deposition of former Special Envoy Volker and have been released publicly.

3) On October 3, 2019, the president stood in front of U.S. press cameras outside the White House and said, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.” The president’s statement was broadcast widely.

A president takes the following oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These acts, based on what has been revealed to date, are a legitimate basis for an expeditious impeachment investigation, vote in the House of Representatives and potential trial in the Senate. Additional evidence that was detailed in the Special Counsel’s Report, related matters of foreign emoluments, and persistent obstructive activities should also inform these proceedings. In addition, given that some of the critical facts under consideration by the Congress have been facilitated by a complaint presented to the Inspector General of the U.S. Intelligence Community, any efforts by U.S. government personnel to inappropriately pressure, intimidate or expose the whistleblower or future whistleblowers who follow the procedures provided by law are contrary to the norms of a society that adheres to the rule of law.

As we said in an April 2019 statement, “free and fair elections, without foreign interference, are at the heart of a healthy democracy.” The Special Counsel’s report revealed, among other things, that the Trump 2016 campaign was open to and enthusiastic about receiving Russian government-facilitated assistance to gain an advantage in the previous election. The report was not only an exposition, it was a warning. The present circumstances are materially worse: we have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections. These activities, which are factually undisputed, undermine the integrity of our elections, endanger global U.S. security and defense partnerships, and threaten our democracy.

Jonathan H. Adler
Donald B. Ayer
George T. Conway III
Carrie F. Cordero
Charles Fried
Stuart M. Gerson
Peter D. Keisler
Orin S. Kerr
Marisa C. Maleck
Trevor Potter
Alan Charles Raul
Jonathan C. Rose
Paul Rosenzweig
Andrew Sagor
Jaime D. Sneider
J.W. Verret

Each of us speaks and acts solely in our individual capacities, and our views should not be attributed to any organization with which we may be affiliated.

 

[32counter]

Dumb as a bunch of rocks.Pompeo is his girly boy.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

BREAKING NEWS: Bipartisan Group of 20 Past Presidents of the DC Bar Write to the House of Representatives Endorsing Impeachment Inquiry
Twenty past presidents of the District of Columbia Bar, which numbers more than 100,000 attorneys in all 50 states, today released a statement endorsing House impeachment proceedings. The signers, both Republican and Democrat, write:

“Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the Rule of Law.. We have watched with dismay the persistent disregard for the Rule of Law during the current Administration, a pattern and practice that is so pervasive and pernicious that only the impeachment process can attempt to rectify the President’s abuse of office…”

“We are united in the view that our constitutional system depends on adhering to the Rule of Law, not only by private citizens but more crucially by public officials charged with the power and responsibility of important government offices…”

“The Framers of our Constitution were careful to build in a safety valve to protect the Nation when the person who was elected to the high office of President engages in high crimes and misdemeanors after he takes office, that is, when he violates the most fundamental precepts of constitutional order. Reluctantly, but firmly, we believe that this President has engaged in such offenses and, therefore, is subject to being impeached by the House of Representatives.”

10.23.2019
For immediate release

Open Letter from Past Presidents of The District of Columbia Bar
to the Members of the House of Representatives

“IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NECESSARY TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW”

Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the Rule of Law. As Past Presidents of The District of Columbia Bar, we have watched with dismay the persistent disregard for the Rule of Law during the current Administration, a pattern and practice that is so pervasive and pernicious that only the impeachment process can attempt to rectify the President’s abuse of office. Therefore, we endorse and encourage the continuing pursuit of impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives to prepare for a vote on appropriate articles of impeachment of the President.

The District of Columbia Bar is the largest unified bar in the United States, with membership of more than 100,000 lawyers in all 50 states and more than 80 countries. The Presidents of the Bar are elected directly by the members. Past Presidents are Republicans and Democrats. We are lawyers whose primary careers have been in government service, in private practice in large and small firms, in the academic community, in public interest organizations, in corporate law departments, or in a combination of those experiences. Our respective terms span a period of more than forty years. We have conflicting perspectives on many issues of law and policy. But we are united in the view that our constitutional system depends on adhering to the Rule of Law, not only by private citizens but more crucially by public officials charged with the power and responsibility of important government offices.

Respect for the Rule of Law by the President of the United States is the fulcrum on which our legal system rests. The President’s essential constitutional duty is to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed.” Therefore, when a President violates this public trust, the entire constitutional system is thrown out of balance, all to the damage of the country at large. The incumbent President has deliberately and persistently reneged on this public trust and, as a consequence, has made himself liable to being removed from his office through the constitutionally established process of impeachment and trial.

There are two clusters of abuse that fall within our areas of special concern as Bar leaders. One is the President’s pattern of obstruction of justice. Among the instances of obstruction are those described in detail in the Report submitted by our fellow member of The District of Columbia Bar, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. His careful investigation, ably aided by a number of our other colleagues, documented repeated instances in which the President sought to interfere with investigations, by his office, by other Justice Department prosecutors, and by counter-intelligence agencies. Other similar instances of the President’s disregard for the ordinary course of federal criminal justice have come to light outside the Mueller Report. Nothing is more in conflict with a President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed than the President’s obstructing the enforcement of those laws.

The public record shows a second cluster of abuses that strike at the heart of the Rule of Law: the President’s pattern of flouting the legitimate role of Congress in seeking information for performing its functions. Our constitutional system of Separation of Powers wisely allocates important powers to the Legislative Branch, including the power both to enact laws and also to oversee their sufficiency and their honest, honorable, and effective implementation. Not only has the President displayed disdain for the role of Congress in our constitutional system, he has gone to the unprecedented extreme of directing the entire Executive Branch to ignore congressional requests for material information, and even has directed government officials to flout congressional subpoenas. This imperious attitude betrays a disregard for the authority of the Legislative Branch, a vital element in the Separation of Powers that is crucial to the maintenance of the Rule of Law.

The Framers of our Constitution were careful to build in a safety valve to protect the Nation when the person who was elected to the high office of President engages in high crimes and misdemeanors after he takes office, that is, when he violates the most fundamental precepts of constitutional order. Reluctantly, but firmly, we believe that this President has engaged in such offenses and, therefore, is subject to being impeached by the House of Representatives. No lesser response would be adequate in order begin to restore and protect the Rule of Law.

Signed [in reverse chronological order]*

Esther Lim (2018-2019) (former Board of Governors, National Asian Pacific
American Bar Association).

Patrick McGlone (2017-2018) (corporate general counsel)

Annamaria Steward (2016—2017) (executive director, national legal
organization; former law school Dean of Students)

Andrea C. Ferster (2013-2014) (lawyer in private practice)

Kim Keenan (2009-2010) (former General Counsel, National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People)

Melvin White (2008-2008) (U.S. Air Force Veteran; lawyer in private practice)

John C Cruden (2005-2006) (former Assistant Attorney General, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice)

Jack Keeney, Jr. (2004-2005) (Delegate, American Bar Association House of
Delegates)

George W. Jones, Jr. (2002-2003) (former Assistant to the Solicitor General,
Department of Justice)

John W. Nields, Jr. (2000-2001) (former Chief Counsel, House of
Representatives Ethics Committee; Chief Counsel, House Select
Iran/Contra Committee; Special Counsel for public integrity
prosecutions, Department of Justice)

Joan H. Strand (1999-2000) (Professor Emerita of Clinical Law, George
Washington University Law School)

Andrew H. Marks (1998-1999) (former Executive Assistant to President’s
Personal Representative to the Middle East Peace Negotiations)

Pauline A. Schneider (1994-1995) (Delegate, American Bar Association House
of Delegates)

Sara-Ann Determan (1990-1991) (former chair, Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs)

Philip Allen Lacovara (1988-1989) (former Deputy Solicitor General and
Counsel to Watergate Special Prosecutor, Department of Justice;
Special Counsel to House of Representatives Ethics Committee)

Marna S. Tucker (1984-1985) (Past President, National Conference of Bar
Presidents)

Stephen J. Pollak (1980-1981) (former Advisor to the President of the United
States for National Capital Affairs; Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, Department of Justice)

Robert L. Weinberg (1978-1979) (former President, Bar Association of District
of Columbia and university lecturer in law)

Charles R. Work (1976-1977) (former Deputy Administrator, Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, Department of Justice)

Katherine Mazzaferri (1982-2017) (former Executive Director and Chief
Executive Officer, The District of Columbia Bar)

_____

Illustrative affiliations are for identification purposes only; these views are not intended to be attributed to The District of Columbia Bar organization or to the other entities identified; the remaining surviving Past Presidents who have not joined in this statement cited various conflicting professional engagements, such as government-related employment or representation of clients in the matter; no Past President expressed disagreement with these conclusions.

https://lawworksaction.org/posts/br...epresentatives-endorsing-impeachment-inquiry/

 

[urmite]

BREAKING NEWS: Bipartisan Group of 20 Past Presidents of the DC Bar Write to the House of Representatives Endorsing Impeachment Inquiry
Twenty past presidents of the District of Columbia Bar, which numbers more than 100,000 attorneys in all 50 states, today released a statement endorsing House impeachment proceedings. The signers, both Republican and Democrat, write:

“Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the Rule of Law.. We have watched with dismay the persistent disregard for the Rule of Law during the current Administration, a pattern and practice that is so pervasive and pernicious that only the impeachment process can attempt to rectify the President’s abuse of office…”

“We are united in the view that our constitutional system depends on adhering to the Rule of Law, not only by private citizens but more crucially by public officials charged with the power and responsibility of important government offices…”

“The Framers of our Constitution were careful to build in a safety valve to protect the Nation when the person who was elected to the high office of President engages in high crimes and misdemeanors after he takes office, that is, when he violates the most fundamental precepts of constitutional order. Reluctantly, but firmly, we believe that this President has engaged in such offenses and, therefore, is subject to being impeached by the House of Representatives.”

10.23.2019
For immediate release

Open Letter from Past Presidents of The District of Columbia Bar
to the Members of the House of Representatives

“IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NECESSARY TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW”

Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the Rule of Law. As Past Presidents of The District of Columbia Bar, we have watched with dismay the persistent disregard for the Rule of Law during the current Administration, a pattern and practice that is so pervasive and pernicious that only the impeachment process can attempt to rectify the President’s abuse of office. Therefore, we endorse and encourage the continuing pursuit of impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives to prepare for a vote on appropriate articles of impeachment of the President.

The District of Columbia Bar is the largest unified bar in the United States, with membership of more than 100,000 lawyers in all 50 states and more than 80 countries. The Presidents of the Bar are elected directly by the members. Past Presidents are Republicans and Democrats. We are lawyers whose primary careers have been in government service, in private practice in large and small firms, in the academic community, in public interest organizations, in corporate law departments, or in a combination of those experiences. Our respective terms span a period of more than forty years. We have conflicting perspectives on many issues of law and policy. But we are united in the view that our constitutional system depends on adhering to the Rule of Law, not only by private citizens but more crucially by public officials charged with the power and responsibility of important government offices.

Respect for the Rule of Law by the President of the United States is the fulcrum on which our legal system rests. The President’s essential constitutional duty is to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed.” Therefore, when a President violates this public trust, the entire constitutional system is thrown out of balance, all to the damage of the country at large. The incumbent President has deliberately and persistently reneged on this public trust and, as a consequence, has made himself liable to being removed from his office through the constitutionally established process of impeachment and trial.

There are two clusters of abuse that fall within our areas of special concern as Bar leaders. One is the President’s pattern of obstruction of justice. Among the instances of obstruction are those described in detail in the Report submitted by our fellow member of The District of Columbia Bar, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. His careful investigation, ably aided by a number of our other colleagues, documented repeated instances in which the President sought to interfere with investigations, by his office, by other Justice Department prosecutors, and by counter-intelligence agencies. Other similar instances of the President’s disregard for the ordinary course of federal criminal justice have come to light outside the Mueller Report. Nothing is more in conflict with a President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed than the President’s obstructing the enforcement of those laws.

The public record shows a second cluster of abuses that strike at the heart of the Rule of Law: the President’s pattern of flouting the legitimate role of Congress in seeking information for performing its functions. Our constitutional system of Separation of Powers wisely allocates important powers to the Legislative Branch, including the power both to enact laws and also to oversee their sufficiency and their honest, honorable, and effective implementation. Not only has the President displayed disdain for the role of Congress in our constitutional system, he has gone to the unprecedented extreme of directing the entire Executive Branch to ignore congressional requests for material information, and even has directed government officials to flout congressional subpoenas. This imperious attitude betrays a disregard for the authority of the Legislative Branch, a vital element in the Separation of Powers that is crucial to the maintenance of the Rule of Law.

The Framers of our Constitution were careful to build in a safety valve to protect the Nation when the person who was elected to the high office of President engages in high crimes and misdemeanors after he takes office, that is, when he violates the most fundamental precepts of constitutional order. Reluctantly, but firmly, we believe that this President has engaged in such offenses and, therefore, is subject to being impeached by the House of Representatives. No lesser response would be adequate in order begin to restore and protect the Rule of Law.

Signed [in reverse chronological order]*

Esther Lim (2018-2019) (former Board of Governors, National Asian Pacific
American Bar Association).

Patrick McGlone (2017-2018) (corporate general counsel)

Annamaria Steward (2016—2017) (executive director, national legal
organization; former law school Dean of Students)

Andrea C. Ferster (2013-2014) (lawyer in private practice)

Kim Keenan (2009-2010) (former General Counsel, National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People)

Melvin White (2008-2008) (U.S. Air Force Veteran; lawyer in private practice)

John C Cruden (2005-2006) (former Assistant Attorney General, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice)

Jack Keeney, Jr. (2004-2005) (Delegate, American Bar Association House of
Delegates)

George W. Jones, Jr. (2002-2003) (former Assistant to the Solicitor General,
Department of Justice)

John W. Nields, Jr. (2000-2001) (former Chief Counsel, House of
Representatives Ethics Committee; Chief Counsel, House Select
Iran/Contra Committee; Special Counsel for public integrity
prosecutions, Department of Justice)

Joan H. Strand (1999-2000) (Professor Emerita of Clinical Law, George
Washington University Law School)

Andrew H. Marks (1998-1999) (former Executive Assistant to President’s
Personal Representative to the Middle East Peace Negotiations)

Pauline A. Schneider (1994-1995) (Delegate, American Bar Association House
of Delegates)

Sara-Ann Determan (1990-1991) (former chair, Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs)

Philip Allen Lacovara (1988-1989) (former Deputy Solicitor General and
Counsel to Watergate Special Prosecutor, Department of Justice;
Special Counsel to House of Representatives Ethics Committee)

Marna S. Tucker (1984-1985) (Past President, National Conference of Bar
Presidents)

Stephen J. Pollak (1980-1981) (former Advisor to the President of the United
States for National Capital Affairs; Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, Department of Justice)

Robert L. Weinberg (1978-1979) (former President, Bar Association of District
of Columbia and university lecturer in law)

Charles R. Work (1976-1977) (former Deputy Administrator, Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, Department of Justice)

Katherine Mazzaferri (1982-2017) (former Executive Director and Chief
Executive Officer, The District of Columbia Bar)

_____

Illustrative affiliations are for identification purposes only; these views are not intended to be attributed to The District of Columbia Bar organization or to the other entities identified; the remaining surviving Past Presidents who have not joined in this statement cited various conflicting professional engagements, such as government-related employment or representation of clients in the matter; no Past President expressed disagreement with these conclusions.

https://lawworksaction.org/posts/br...epresentatives-endorsing-impeachment-inquiry/

Have you had DNA testing to be certain you are not the poster ispider's republican brother?

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

Have you had DNA testing to be certain you are not the poster ispider's republican brother?

Someone else mentioned this. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please tell me how it might be relevant.

 

[urmite]

Someone else mentioned this. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please tell me how it might be relevant.

Not sure post #3 is his best work.
https://richmond.forums.rivals.com/threads/reality.10793/#post-246859

But many would say he was by far our most eloquent ...and verbose poster.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

Not sure post #3 is his best work.
https://richmond.forums.rivals.com/threads/reality.10793/#post-246859

But many would say he was by far our most eloquent ...and verbose poster.

Not related, but I appreciate the reference. I read a few of his posts, but I didn't get the impression that Mr. ISpider was a Republican.

I respect your opinion but as to me, unlike Mr. ISpider, I merely copied and pasted verbatim from articles I had read that supported my contention that Trump should not be our president. If my posts appear verbose to you, it would seem to be an issue you have with the writers of those articles. IMO, they are lengthy, but not wordy. You probably disagree, but I think that they contained a lot of important information and opinion.

 

[WebSpinner]

so the dems want to run an impeachment from the intelligence committee instead of the judiciary committee because the intelligence committee can meet in secret, in the basement. what transparency for the nation and its citizens. run by a california guy who has done nothing but lie for three years about having evidence of trump colluding with the russians. now there is a ton of credibility. the dems could not beat trump in the election so now they want to remove him from office behind closed doors and take away my vote and the votes of millions of others. not how our country should work but with the media leading the way, both the dem and their partners are continuing the march to rip this country apart. is this how you want the next democrat president to be treated? really?

 

[urfan1]

Judiciary Committee can meet in private, here are the rules:

Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the hearing because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House.

 

[urfan1]

Same with Intelligence:

(b) Meetings. Any meeting or portion thereof for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, or any hearing or portion thereof shall be closed to the public if the Committee determines by record vote in open session, with a majority of the Committee present, that disclosure of the matters to be discussed may: (1) Endanger national security; (2) Compromise sensitive law enforcement information; (3) Tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; or (4) Otherwise violate any law or Rule of the House. (c) Hearings. The Committee may vote to close a Committee hearing pursuant to clause 11(d)(2) of House Rule X, regardless of whether a majority is present, so long as at least two members of the Committee are present, one of whom is a member of the Minority and votes upon the motion.

 

[WebSpinner]

except that shiff said there was no national security involved. this is a sham, nothing more, a coup or attempted coup. this is not how our country runs or should be run and seems the dems are setting a precedent here that all future presidents can face this same idiotic process if some side does not like him or her. trump has not done anything wrong, some people don't like him and they want to remove him but we have elections for that not coups. this is so wrong and at a time when we need one country, it is being futher torn apart.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

except that shiff said there was no national security involved. this is a sham, nothing more, a coup or attempted coup. this is not how our country runs or should be run and seems the dems are setting a precedent here that all future presidents can face this same idiotic process if some side does not like him or her. trump has not done anything wrong, some people don't like him and they want to remove him but we have elections for that not coups. this is so wrong and at a time when we need one country, it is being futher torn apart.

Most Americans, a large majority, do not agree with you.

Washington Post-Schar School poll

 

[WebSpinner]

how about now? obvious, they have nothing at all, just like the russia sham. what we have are deep state bureaucrats who don't like trump's policy and how he carries it out. they work for him not the other way around. the dems are so into hate and getting rid of trump that they are shooting themselves in the foot, again. the first day should have been their best day but was nothing at all except two ivy league bow-tie guys who don't like trump but have no direct knowledge of a crime at all. we will see if shiff has anything better in the next few days but if not, pelosi is going to put an end to this complete farce.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

Mr. Webspinner, I think that we are on the same team. However, I think you need to let go of Trump. You may or may not be a Christian person like me, but by any standards, you must see that he has corrupted our government and is the closest resemblest to the AntiChrist we have ever seen. If you are loyal Republican and loyal to our ideals, you will agree with me, and others, like Pat Roberson, as he said this week, that you cannot serve the vile program of Trump. He is not just a Phisitine, he is evil incarnate. It has nothing to do with Ivy League schools, which he and his children attended, it has to do with his lack of Christian values. Surely, you cannot disagree with this.
I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I am not a socialist. I am a Christian and embrace Christian ideals. I respect that you may not embrace the same moral standards, but I implore you to not embrace Satin. I implore you to denounce Trump and all that he stands for. If you are a true Christian, you will join me in renouncing him.

 

[WebSpinner]

gosh, don't think i have a thing to say about your thoughts. support trump because of what he is doing for our country. the only prob in our country is those not accepting a free and fair election where they lost and cannot get over it. again today, a witness who was not on the telephone call, has never met or spoken to trump and has no evidence of a crime or an impeachable offense. not sure what shiff is doing or planning here but he certainly has not shown that there was any crime at all nor an impeachable offense. he and the dems are wasting time doing this while legislation and other items sit dormant. don't think this is what the people want but we will see.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'm tired of all of this. Some people love Trump and will always love him no matter what. Others hate him and always will no matter what. The impeachment process is going to end with him still in office, but I don't object to the process itself. There's ample evidence that he has broken laws, though none of it came directly from his lips on video, and that seems to be the necessary standard.

My dislike of him is as a person. He is a reprehensible human being. As someone with two young kids, I would feel like a total failure if either of them grew up and exhibited even 5% of the behavior he regularly exhibits. I expect more of a public servant, even at a city level – much less as the leader of the free world. I don't care what party he's from, I could never endorse someone who behaves like a bully and has the vocabulary of a four-year-old. I'm ready for a decent human being to occupy the White House, and I could not care any less what party, race, gender or religion that person represents.

I worry about the lasting effects of Trump on the rest of the country: Don't agree with something you hear? Just call it fake and move along. Don't care for a particular person? Just call him or her a bunch of names and completely ruin that person to save your own face. Don't like what the facts are? Just lie and then claim you're being unfairly attacked when someone calls you out on it.

This isn't America. It's not how we should behave. We are better than this, and we're allowing one idiot dictate a change in society. It's unconscionable to me, and it's sad.

 

[KE Spider]

"I worry about the lasting effects of Trump on the rest of the country: Don't agree with something you hear? Just call it fake and move along. Don't care for a particular person? Just call him or her a bunch of names and completely ruin that person to save your own face. Don't like what the facts are? Just lie and then claim you're being unfairly attacked when someone calls you out on it."

Not a Trump fan, but sadly you could say the exact same about the Resistance.

 

[Eight Legger]

Party politics is killing this country, plain and simple. People no longer think for themselves, they just blindly follow the R or the D and find any reason they can to criticize the other.

 

[WebSpinner]

Eight, you state that trump has broken laws, yet the people on the committee have found not a single one. why don't you tell us which ones since you do know. what we have are a bunch of arrogant ivy leaguers with their panties in a bunch because trump does not utilize their talking points or wishes to carry out policy outside their channel. the dems can vote on impeachment, actually impeach him but not sure on what basis. hard to fathom that anyone with any common sense wants to have this very serious matter carried out because they don't like him as opposed to actually having committed treason or other crimes. this is not what impeachment is about and it sets yet another scary precedent for future presidents. the only good thing which might come of a trial in the senate is that the republicans can call and subpoena who they want so the bidens and others could be the ones facing the music. that would be a fitting end to this debacle.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

Eight, you state that trump has broken laws, yet the people on the committee have found not a single one. why don't you tell us which ones since you do know.

Let me answer that one for Eight.

Laws Trump has broken with respect to Ukraine alone:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” It’s not hard to grasp:
“Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

2. 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison.

3. 18 U.S. Code § 610, which covers that crime rather clearly under the title: “Coercion of political activity. “It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in … any political activity.”

4. 18 U.S. Code § 607, “Place of solicitation,” and 52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.” Essentially, it’s illegal to solicit contributions to your presidential campaign from the Oval Office and illegal to solicit from foreign nationals no matter where you do it from: “It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President … to solicit or receive a donation of money or other things of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.” That’s another three years.

Link:
THE ACTUAL LAWS TRUMP HAS BROKEN, JUST WITH THE UKRAINE AND CHINA AFFAIRS, COULD LAND HIM 10 YEARS IN PRISON.
See also: ALL THE PRESIDENT'S CRIMES

Next question, please.

 

[WebSpinner]

first of all, want Eight to answer because he is the one who stated that trump broke laws. however, you have listed things that shiff wishes trump had done but has zero proof that he did any of them. did you watch any of the sham? what he has is a group of ticked off bureaucrats who don't like the way trump is running his foreign policy but that is not a crime. most of the witnesses to "said" crimes, were not on the call, had never even spoken to the prez. the only witness who spoke directly with trump of ukraine stated that he asked him an open question, what do you want from ukraine and he said nothing just for the new prez there to do what is right. both trump and the new prez there stated that there was no pressure and nothing expected. aid was released and the ukrainians did nothing in return. in other words, no matter how much you or Eight or shiff want there to be crimes or impeachable offenses, there is no proof or testimony of any. you don't go to court and say, trump committed all of these crimes listed above, without proof, the judge would not allow a trial with what has been presented. now, the dems, can impeach for wishing but they will never get a conviction without the evidence. now, go back and come back with crimes and furnish proof and we will have something to discuss. if you are old enough to recall the clinton impeachment, an independent counsel actually had 12 felonies and clinton lost his law license although he was not removed from office by the senate.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

first of all, want Eight to answer because he is the one who stated that trump broke laws. however, you have listed things that shiff wishes trump had done but has zero proof that he did any of them. did you watch any of the sham? what he has is a group of ticked off bureaucrats who don't like the way trump is running his foreign policy but that is not a crime. most of the witnesses to "said" crimes, were not on the call, had never even spoken to the prez. the only witness who spoke directly with trump of ukraine stated that he asked him an open question, what do you want from ukraine and he said nothing just for the new prez there to do what is right. both trump and the new prez there stated that there was no pressure and nothing expected. aid was released and the ukrainians did nothing in return. in other words, no matter how much you or Eight or shiff want there to be crimes or impeachable offenses, there is no proof or testimony of any. you don't go to court and say, trump committed all of these crimes listed above, without proof, the judge would not allow a trial with what has been presented. now, the dems, can impeach for wishing but they will never get a conviction without the evidence. now, go back and come back with crimes and furnish proof and we will have something to discuss. if you are old enough to recall the clinton impeachment, an independent counsel actually had 12 felonies and clinton lost his law license although he was not removed from office by the senate.

No offense intended, but you do not understand the impeachment process (or even the trial process..." without proof, the judge would not allow a trial with what has been presented..." Judges do not get to allow trials. They get to decide them. Civics 101. And this is not a trial. It's impeachment or an evidentiary investigation to determine whether there should be a trial (in the Senate). What the Intelligence Committee is attempting to ascertain is whether they believe there is probable cause for the next step. In doing so, they are filling a constitutional mandate of oversight (Art II). It's not about Schiff or Nunes. It's about providing the American people with information about the workings of their government. Don't you want to know about all these shenanigans that have occurred? Seriously. I know that I do. Especially since they are a threat to our national security. And these shenanigans appear to be just that.

That said, in addition to the laws which seem to have been broken, the Congressional manual or rules of impeachment adopted by Congress (both parties), states that the following constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment:
"(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or personal gain."

Indisputably, at the very minimum, Trump's behavior in and concerning Ukraine has provided evidence that he should be impeached. Had the whistleblower not come forth, who knows what would have happened. Russia might now own all of Ukraine and most of Georgia. Maybe the entire Caucasus.

To answer your question regarding my watching the hearing, yes, I have watched every minute of the proceedings, though most of it not in real-time. And, sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusions concerning Trump's lack of knowledge or direction of his mule, Giuliani.
I mean we are talking about the same guy here, right?
Mr. Honesty? Mr. Largest-Inauguraral-Crowd-Ever? That guy?

But not to worry. Trump will not be removed from office. There are too many Republican Senators who will be guided by their pro-Trump constituencies. Shame, that. But the real tragedy is that when Trump is gone, the GOP that I have known my entire life will be reduced to a mere shadow of its former self. The red-meat people --those whom Trump has won over by appeal to their base and vulgar sides--will all wither away and the party will be left with only a few of us who embrace Republicanism and its principles.
And we will be impotent.

 

[WebSpinner]

first of all, the individual deemed the "whistleblower" does not meet any definition of a federal whistleblower, he is not a whistleblower at all. he got a call from the colonel who lied under oath the other day stating that he did not know who the fake whistleblower was yet he does and of course shiff, not under oath, stated he does not know who he is yet both parties went ballistic when a questioner asked the name of the second individual who the colonel spoke with after the call, a complete sham and joke. the point is, there is no victim here, the ukranian prez stated he felt no pressure and was completely happy with the call. the only folks not happy were the arrogant bureaucrats who think they set policy not the president and they are completely wrong. he has broken no law and he has not committed any impeachable offense, period. this is all politics and a continuation of the fake russia scam which turned out to be nothing more than an attempt to get trump to resign. the dems and their partners in the media never counted on a strong, street fighter who was not going to buckle under all the lies they fed the american people and especially those people who lapped it up as fact. cannot believe that fairly smart people are going down that road again but it is about hate, nothing more.

 

[WebSpinner]

sorry Eight but had to laugh at some of your thoughts about trump. gosh, was it trump who attempted to ruin judge kavanagh in front of his parents, his wife and his two young daughters? trump attacks those who come after him, love that but he has not come even close to those who attacked kavanagh and trump's kids, including his 10 year old son.
am not an attorney but seem to recall attorneys asking a judge(s) to throw cases out due to lack of evidence before or during a trial. am sure it does not happen ofte but it does seem that a judge has that power. anyone with half a brain can see what is taking place here and it should no be happening. all of these witnesses were giving their opinions not facts and none of them, when asked, could cite one crime or appeachable offense, ZERO.

 

[iSpider]

first of all, the individual deemed the "whistleblower" does not meet any definition of a federal whistleblower, he is not a whistleblower at all. he got a call from the colonel who lied under oath the other day stating that he did not know who the fake whistleblower was yet he does and of course shiff, not under oath, stated he does not know who he is yet both parties went ballistic when a questioner asked the name of the second individual who the colonel spoke with after the call, a complete sham and joke. the point is, there is no victim here, the ukranian prez stated he felt no pressure and was completely happy with the call. the only folks not happy were the arrogant bureaucrats who think they set policy not the president and they are completely wrong. he has broken no law and he has not committed any impeachable offense, period. this is all politics and a continuation of the fake russia scam which turned out to be nothing more than an attempt to get trump to resign. the dems and their partners in the media never counted on a strong, street fighter who was not going to buckle under all the lies they fed the american people and especially those people who lapped it up as fact. cannot believe that fairly smart people are going down that road again but it is about hate, nothing more.

What are you hoping Santa brings you for Xmas, a Trumpfy Bear?

You remind me of ”Frankie, the Broom.”
Are you related? Did you ever have a commercial cleaning company?

 

[WebSpinner]

funny, when one has no leg to stand on, no argument, they normally play the nazi or racist card while you denigrate blue collar folks like my dad. am going to utilize this all over social media without your permission so come after me why don't you dude.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

first of all, the individual deemed the "whistleblower" does not meet any definition of a federal whistleblower, he is not a whistleblower at all. he got a call from the colonel who lied under oath the other day stating that he did not know who the fake whistleblower was yet he does and of course shiff, not under oath, stated he does not know who he is yet both parties went ballistic when a questioner asked the name of the second individual who the colonel spoke with after the call, a complete sham and joke. the point is, there is no victim here, the ukranian prez stated he felt no pressure and was completely happy with the call. the only folks not happy were the arrogant bureaucrats who think they set policy not the president and they are completely wrong. he has broken no law and he has not committed any impeachable offense, period. this is all politics and a continuation of the fake russia scam which turned out to be nothing more than an attempt to get trump to resign. the dems and their partners in the media never counted on a strong, street fighter who was not going to buckle under all the lies they fed the american people and especially those people who lapped it up as fact. cannot believe that fairly smart people are going down that road again but it is about hate, nothing more.

Mr. Webspinner, you are apparently a very passionate man and I mean you no disrespect, but let me ask you a serious question. Where do you get your information? I mean, by golly, in addition to the RTD I read the WSJ, the NYT, WAPO, and USA Today. I have not seen any of what you have said above reported by any of them. Now I may have missed something, admittedly, but if so please point out what and please direct me to the source of your information so that I can be factually informed about this information and understand the reality of what is going on, like you.

Also, please also help me understand why what you say about the whistleblower matters, even if true. Tell me how it might be relevant to whether Trump abused power or broke the law.
And tell me why does any of that even matter?
I am apparently missing the reason behind a very important point that you are making, but why would we question the source of information fingering the identity of a bank robber or serial rapist?
It seems to me the only issue here is the crime, not the person who pointed it out or the sources of information.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

sorry Eight but had to laugh at some of your thoughts about trump. gosh, was it trump who attempted to ruin judge kavanagh in front of his parents, his wife and his two young daughters? trump attacks those who come after him, love that but he has not come even close to those who attacked kavanagh and trump's kids, including his 10 year old son.
am not an attorney but seem to recall attorneys asking a judge(s) to throw cases out due to lack of evidence before or during a trial. am sure it does not happen ofte but it does seem that a judge has that power. anyone with half a brain can see what is taking place here and it should no be happening. all of these witnesses were giving their opinions not facts and none of them, when asked, could cite one crime or appeachable offense, ZERO.

Mr. Webspinner, intending no disrespect, yet again I seek your counsel. Since evidence is only presented during a trial (or hearing), how can a judge "throw cases out due to lack of evidence before...a trial"?

I am not being Snarky. Apparently, I just don't have a full brain (maybe not even "half a brain"). So please help me understand.
I apologize for my ignorance, but word on the street is that in the case of an impeachment, the trial does not even start until the matter reaches the Senate. So I'm going to need an answer before then. Thanks.

 

[KE Spider]

What are you hoping Santa brings you for Xmas, a Trumpfy Bear?

You remind me of ”Frankie, the Broom.”
Are you related? Did you ever have a commercial cleaning company?

View embedded media

i, good to see you out here again. We often are not in sync with our views, but always enjoy your take on things.

 

[iSpider]

funny, when one has no leg to stand on, no argument, they normally play the nazi or racist card while you denigrate blue collar folks like my dad. am going to utilize this all over social media without your permission so come after me why don't you dude.

Au contraire, mon comrade Spinner.
Frankie, the Broom is far from blue collar. He is the CEO of the company he founded, albeit probably sans a business degree.
He also has a cousin, Larry, the Loo
Can you guess what he does?

But the example which really exemplifies the unreality which is Trumpf is the former Marine who rides around with a teddy bear behind the handle bars of his Harley. [Faux anecdote: Just yesterday three ex-Marines drove by me with Barbie and Ken dolls attached to the saddlebags of their Super Glides.Too cute.]

C’mon, Spinner. Christ.
Really?
Not only an insult to Marines, but like with Frankie, an insult to the intelligence of all Americans.
Odious.
Disgraceful.
This is Trumpf.

This is Trumpf.
This is not me.
This is not the Dems.
If you are offended at some level because of your perception that it is a slam on the occupation of your father, good for you.
But you need to turn your indignation to Trumpf. This ad reveals in large part the predicate of Trumpf’s political strategy --
The pandering, the disingenuousness, the baseness, the vulgarity.
This is Trumpf.

So let me ask you a serious question, comrade Spinner. Do you think that growing up in a blue-collar household contributed to your inability to make sound political judgments?

 

[WebSpinner]

did you read the transcript of the call, did you watch the shiff hearings? if you did, you will know that trump did nothing wrong other than hurt some deep state bureaucrat's feelings because he did things his way rather than their way. they may not have liked it or him but not a crime nor an impeachable event(s). did you follow the russian scam? this is part II, meaning another sham. tell me what laws trump has broken or what things he has done which reach or get even within 500 feet of being impeachable. abuse of power is not doing your job, which is what he is doing, just not like unelected, arrogant, bureaucrats, think it should be done, again not criminal or impeachable. there is absolutely nothing there and all of you know it if you read the transcript, fully not just snippets thrown out by the main stream media. read the full transcript and you will discern the truth not what the dems and their partners in the media want you to see, read, hear. the dems are always accusing trump of dividing the country but if one looks, it is obvious who is trying to destroy our country.

 

[urfan1]

remember he released a summary of the call, not a transcript.

 

[iSpider]

did you read the transcript of the call, did you watch the shiff hearings? if you did, you will know that trump did nothing wrong other than hurt some deep state bureaucrat's feelings because he did things his way rather than their way. they may not have liked it or him but not a crime nor an impeachable event(s). did you follow the russian scam? this is part II, meaning another sham. tell me what laws trump has broken or what things he has done which reach or get even within 500 feet of being impeachable. abuse of power is not doing your job, which is what he is doing, just not like unelected, arrogant, bureaucrats, think it should be done, again not criminal or impeachable. there is absolutely nothing there and all of you know it if you read the transcript, fully not just snippets thrown out by the main stream media. read the full transcript and you will discern the truth not what the dems and their partners in the media want you to see, read, hear. the dems are always accusing trump of dividing the country but if one looks, it is obvious who is trying to destroy our country.

I read everything and listened to the full hearing. Everything you have said is false. You either have your head buried in the sand, you are mildly retarded, or you are a communist spewing a fictional narrative consistent with the Russian party line.

 

[AnnapSpider]

I read everything and listened to the full hearing. Everything you have said is false. You either have your head buried in the sand, you are mildly retarded, or you are a communist spewing a fictional narrative consistent with the Russian party line.

I spider, your personal attacks on a person with a different view make you like those awful progressives that won’t allow conservative views to even be heard, and attack people in restaurants when they are trying to have a private moment with their families. Pretty despicable no matter what side of the aisle you’re on.

 

[localspider]

I spider, your personal attacks on a person with a different view make you like those awful progressives that won’t allow conservative views to even be heard, and attack people in restaurants when they are trying to have a private moment with their families. Pretty despicable no matter what side of the aisle you’re on.

From the playbook. Don’t like the message attack the messenger.

 

[WebSpinner]

did you see the part where each witness shiff brought out was asked if trump broke the law or committed an appeachable offense? if so, did you hear a single one of them say yes, he did? most of these witnesses were not even on the call, including the one they are attempting to pass off as a whistleblower, and most have never even spoken to the president. what these witnesses provided was their opinions not facts, just comical. A, as far as i know, it was a transcript of the call not a synopsis like barr originally did with the mueller fiasco. trump releasing the transcript is what shiff did not count on, he thought he would be able to lie his way through this but got caught. not sure what you guys are watching or reading but you have been had once again and don't know when you will wise up and use your brains.

 

[urfan1]

Spinner here is one of many sources that explains what was released. A transcript is intended to be verbatim, the document released was not.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/7784...sed-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

 

[KE Spider]

Article states,

"Phone calls between U.S. presidents and foreign leaders are not recorded, but the White House develops a rough transcript of the call using automated transcription software and note takers who try to make the record as accurate and complete as possible."

Standard procedure used by previous Presidents and none of the approximate 30 folks listening in on the call have questioned any material points in the rough transcript. The fact that it is not verbatim doesn't suggest that it is inaccurate or has been tampered with.

Spinner is spot on, Dems never dreamed the Prez would release it thereby blowing up their carefully laid plans. The "whistleblower" is totally compromised bc he worked with Schiff's staff before filing the complaint, totally based on hearsay, with his department's IG. Why do you think the Dems are now trying to keep him from testifying?

I'll say again, I'm not a Trump guy, but the Dems have totally botched this impeachment business. They are their own worst enemy. Hatred is blinding.

The country would be well served if the Trump crowd and the Resistance called a truce. Politics does not have to be a blood sport. They are wrecking our Republic and there is plenty of blame for both sides to share.