Media Bias

[MTK]

Remember the good old days when Fox News freaked out about Obama using a selfie stick? Or when he wore a tan suit? Damn those were some hot scandals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

FOX sure as hell would have ,right?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Giantone

FOX sure as hell would have ,right?

Exactly. Something tells me Cred has graduated to info wars because Fox wasn’t digging deep enough for fresh conspiracies.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Oh for God’s sake man. Can’t you just put your political affiliations aside for one post and admit that this motherfucker tried to play tit for tat with military aid? Obama never did anything that rose to that level. And he was hated by the right from the get go. Didn’t have to ooze shit from his piehole to warrant that hate like Trump has.

[punch it in]

Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. He actually did commit crimes. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. He actually did commit crimes. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.

As Robert Mueller said repeatedly the DOJ has a policy of "not indicting a sitting President" ,.............meaning as long as he is president nothing will happen but when his term ends they can go after him for what ever crimes had been uncovered

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1QF1D3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Congress using the impeachment process. But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question.


The question looms large with Special Counsel Robert Mueller preparing a report on his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, whether President Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow and whether Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe.

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts.

Here is an explanation of the rationale behind the Justice Department policy and whether it applies to Mueller.


WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY?


In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees, including Mueller, according to many legal experts. Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein.

[CRedskinsRule]

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/polit...rts/index.html

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/polit...rts/index.html

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.

Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ent-tiebreaker

Schumer began by asking Roberts if he was aware that Chief Justice Samuel Chase cast tie-breaking votes during President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in the 1860s.
"I have a parliamentary inquiry," Schumer said. "Is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as presiding officer, cast tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?"
Roberts said he was aware of Chase's actions but explained that the issues he sought to resolve were minor. He also said he did not believe Chase's votes were enough to establish a firm precedent for him to act on.
“The one [vote] concerned a motion to adjourn. The other [vote] concerned a motion to close deliberations," Roberts replied. "I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago, as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties." ... "If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion -- the normal rule is that the motion fails," he added.
"I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ent-tiebreaker



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So either she was lying or wasn't paying attention to Roberts.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So either she was lying or wasn't paying attention to Roberts.

Or, since she knew the position he would take, AND his reasons why, she still didnt want to put Roberts in the position of having to take that action and thus risk polarizing the Supreme Court in the media. Him saying his position on the floor, allowed her to make her vote with an eye to the larger good of not dragging the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into an immensely political decision.

Consider the headline if her vote makes it 50-50 and Roberts allows the vote to fail. Roberts decision would be blared across the headlines positively and negatively on a partisan basis. Instead her vote kept the partisan headlines focused where they ought to be, On the Senators.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Veteran journalist suggesting gerrymandering the senate...

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Veteran journalist suggesting gerrymandering the senate...

LOL, it worked for republicans .



chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...olina-michigan

https://www.businessinsider.com/part...mocrats-2017-6

The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.

The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Yet the data suggest that even if Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, their chances of substantial legislative gains were limited by gerrymandering.

“The outcome was already cooked in, if you will, because of the way the districts were drawn,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, it worked for republicans .



chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .

G1, you can’t gerrymander the senate...the point is this journalist is a moron.