Null



homersapien

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    36,995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

homersapien last won the day on August 21 2016

homersapien had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,806 Sterling

About homersapien

  • Rank
    Seamster

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,087 profile views
  1. States with the worst anti-abortion laws also have the worst infant mortality rates Alabama is one of two states, with Georgia, that enacted new abortion restrictions over the last week. Their records on maternal and infant health are shameful. Alabama is tied for fourth-worst place in infant mortality, with a rate of 7.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. Georgia, with a rate of 7.2, is tied for seventh-worst. https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-anti-abortion-infant-mortality-20190515-story.html
  2. I agree. His concern for the primacy of constitutional law and the personal integrity to speak out about it does make him a R.I.N.O.
  3. Well, let's take a look at what the Mueller actually said about obstruction: In the hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!” That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though. “Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump. Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote. Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” Mueller noted several complicating factors with respect to determining whether illegal obstruction occurred. For starters, he wrote, “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Or, as Trump has repeatedly reminded, the report found “NO COLLUSION” by anyone in the Trump campaign with Russians trying to sway the 2016 election in his favor. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility of obstruction, Mueller said. According to the report, “the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events-such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.” Nor does the fact that many of the president’s acts occurred in public view — “including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons” — necessarily clear him, the report states. Mueller report: While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened. Mueller noted that it was only the refusal of Trump’s underlings to go along with his efforts to tamper that kept Trump from being able to successfully impede the investigation. Mueller report: The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. [Former FBI Director James] Comey did not end the investigation of [Retired Lt. Gen. Michael] Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn’s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. [White House counsel Don] McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President’s order. [Former campaign manager Corey] Lewandowski and [Trump campaign official Rick] Dearborn did not deliver the President’s message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President’s direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President’s multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President’s aides and associates beyond those already filed. In a press conference just prior to the public release of the redacted Mueller report on April 18, Attorney General William P. Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “disagreed with some of [Mueller’s] legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law.” But he said that based on the evidence and legal framework presented by Mueller, they concluded the investigation did not establish that Trump had committed the criminal offense of obstruction of justice. During his press conference, Barr claimed that “the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.” That’s contradicted in the report. Mueller notes that after Trump learned that his own conduct regarding obstruction was being investigated after appointment of the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.” The president was also less than fully cooperative regarding Mueller’s interview requests, the report states. The special counsel’s office sought an interview with the president for “more than a year,” getting written responses in late November 2018. “[O]n more than 30 occasions” Trump said he “does not ‘recall’ or ‘remember’ or have an ‘independent recollection’” in response to questions, while other answers were “incomplete or imprecise,” the Mueller report says. The special counsel’s office told the president’s counsel that the written format was inadequate and didn’t give investigators an “opportunity to ask follow-up questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client’s recollection.” But the president declined another request for an in-person interview. Mueller’s team considered a subpoena, but they were concerned with the delay that would cause. Plus, “at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report.” In any case, Barr’s decision not to pursue charges of obstruction against the president may not be the final word. Mueller left open the door for congressional consideration of Trump’s conduct. “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” Mueller wrote. More at: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/
  4. Amash said he did what most of his colleagues in Congress didn’t do — he read the Mueller report. And after reading it, he reached the conclusion that his colleagues in the Republican Party have been trying to undermine: that Trump’s conduct was impeachable. Here’s what Amash wrote in full: Here are my principal conclusions: 1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report. 2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. 3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances. 4. Few members of Congress have read the report. I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis. In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings. Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice. Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust. Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment. In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence. Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct. While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct. Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles. We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release. America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it. Core to Amash’s statement is the reality that Barr’s summary of the Mueller report has been key to how Republicans in Congress have crafted their message around the investigation. Even as the report showed damning evidence of obstruction, the attorney general used language that made it easy for Republicans in general to chalk up this scandal to everything from a total nothingburger to a partisan “witch hunt.”......... Read the full piece at: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/19/18631286/rep-justin-amash-republican-trump-impeachment
  5. You're trying to change the subject to me instead of addressing the substance. That's weaseling. I am correct and you apparently just can't concede it. I don't know if the Russians had any effect on the outcome or not, neither do you. No one does. So stop acting like a child about it.
  6. I was speaking with a societal, legal perspective, whereas you were speaking in a personal sense. That's what made the comparison irrelevant. I thought that was obvious. Sorry if I offended you. Like I said, I understood your point. There's no reason to start hurling insults. I suggest you stay out of the discussion it you're going to get upset.
  7. Do you have a case to cite where a woman was charged and tried for child abuse before a child was born? I'd like to see that. My understanding of Roe v. Wade is that a woman has a right to abort her potential child at any point up to "viability" which is generally considered to be the third trimester. I have no problem with holding a murderer responsible for taking the life of both the mother and potential baby. But I see that more as the expression of a woman's right to keep to keep and protect her potential child. Again, my greater point is that a fetus - at least up to the third trimester - currently has no legal right to be born. It's rights are subordinated to the woman's. You can argue all your want about what rights the fetus does have, but at this point in time, it's the woman's right to make her own choice about abortion - at least up to the third trimester. And speaking of "most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion" was the irony of that intentional?
  8. It is my understanding that Mueller was referring the evidence on obstruction to congress for them to investigate and charge as a possible impeachment proceeding. He most certainly never claimed there was "no evidence" of obstruction.
  9. It's perfectly fair not to agree with it. Personally , I am skeptical that a question such as 'when does life begin?' can - or even should be - answered by the legal system, as opposed to the pregnant woman (and father if relevant).
  10. I will concede that fetuses can be deeded succession rights if you say so. I can imagine that would be possible in some jurisdictions. But again, that is a right that is totally contingent on being born to receive, which is my greater point. Our constitution makes no mention of legal rights of the unborn. It would have been a novel concept in our tradition.
  11. While rights of succession may be granted to an embryo, it is not capable of actually receiving them until born, by definition.
  12. Am I wrong Nola? An egg doesn't even have the potential to become a baby until it's fertilized. Then it becomes a "zygote cell".
  13. Again, you cannot know that. It's unknowable. The election swung on less than 100 thousand votes located in strategic places. There's no way of even guessing what effect the Russian efforts might have had. That's exactly why Trump is so viscerally opposed to even acknowledging Russian interference at all.
  14. Not to quibble, but that "heartbeat" at six weeks is technically known as fetal pole cardiac activity". At that point, there's no circulatory system. But I understand the sentiment behind your point, even if not relevant to mine.