The Goat Pen

Trump knew about Flynn's conversations in November, I bet. Hard to believe he is lone wolfing it.

Trump probably directed it. He's invovlved in this case of light treason so he's wise to deflect the blame to someone else.

Cletus wrote:Trump probably directed it. He's invovlved in this case of light treason so he's wise to deflect the blame to someone else.

actually I think Trump did direct it and that's why on the surface having Flynn fall on his sword may seem to be a good idea but now its an admission and the question is how for up this goes.

Keeping Flynn on board and just buttoning up on it won't stop the accusations but it will help them control the narrative.

And yes, interfering with an investigation a public official releasing sensitive documents is just as bad as a guy saying "hey what about those sanctions, sucks eh? My guy will see it differently"

I know it's folly but I added my name to the "Trump Release Tax Returns" petition - apparently it's on it's way to a mil signers. So much for the notion that only reporters care about it. Takes half a minute, if anybody's interested. heh

bluetick wrote:I know it's folly but I added my name to the "Trump Release Tax Returns" petition - apparently it's on it's way to a mil signers. So much for the notion that only reporters care about it. Takes half a minute, if anybody's interested. heh

what benefit do you get from Tax Returns? Are you hoping for a connection to Russia?

Naw. Just piling on.

It might give some hints as to the conflicts of interest that will drive his policy. It's clear that he will make decisions that benefit him before the country.

The whole show your tax records thing started out trying to prove Trump lied about his net worth

now the only thing people want to complain about is how wealthy is and how its a conflict of interest.

whatever way the wind is blowing

eCat wrote:

Cletus wrote:Trump probably directed it. He's invovlved in this case of light treason so he's wise to deflect the blame to someone else.

actually I think Trump did direct it and that's why on the surface having Flynn fall on his sword may seem to be a good idea but now its an admission and the question is how for up this goes.

Keeping Flynn on board and just buttoning up on it won't stop the accusations but it will help them control the narrative.

And yes, interfering with an investigation a public official releasing sensitive documents is just as bad as a guy saying "hey what about those sanctions, sucks eh? My guy will see it differently"

This administration has enough headaches (after 4 Mondays in office) than to add another by keeping Flynn on board. He was found to be lying about his role as a private citizen involving himself in the affairs of the state with a foreign government. Keeping him on would be the worse possible outcome. Just keeping him on for as long as they did makes thing look pretty bad.

Bill Clinton making a very public visit to Loretta Lynch on a tarmac waiting for clearance to depart is much more about Clinton and his hubris than anything with Lynch. Also, she recused herself of the matter and left it to Comey and the Bureau to comment on. On its face there is no equivalence...and on the details there is no merit. You keep talking about liberals being blind in criticizing anything with Trump, but you seem to be more fervent in your defense of actions that fly in the face of law, decorum and tradition of the office.

Bklyn wrote:fervent in your defense of actions that fly in the face of law, decorum and tradition of the office.

umm..I voted for Trump

you really think Decorum and Tradition were big priorities for me?

eCat wrote:The whole show your tax records thing started out trying to prove Trump lied about his net worth

now the only thing people want to complain about is how wealthy is and how its a conflict of interest.

whatever way the wind is blowing

No, it started because opening up tax returns has been a thing for presidential candidates for quite awhile now. When Trump refused, it reasonably makes one wonder what he's hiding. Presidents really should try to reduce their personal conflicts as much as possible. Trump not only won't remove conflict, he's flaunting it. This is not ok.

C'mon E. Stop trying to save face.

Release the damn tax returns. All the others have. What is he afraid of besides being a crook?

eCat wrote:

Bklyn wrote:fervent in your defense of actions that fly in the face of law, decorum and tradition of the office.

umm..I voted for Trump

you really think Decorum and Tradition were big priorities for me?

Touché

I don't see it as trying to save face.

on the surface you can't argue with Flynn getting busted in a lie and resigning.

But the outrage is over the top - and it wouldn't have been expected under an Obama administration in similar circumstances.

eCat wrote:But the outrage is over the top - and it wouldn't have been expected under an Obama administration in similar circumstances.

a-yup

eCat wrote:
But the outrage is over the top - and it wouldn't have been expected under an Obama administration in similar circumstances.

1. Arguing a negative is one of my biggest pet peeves, as far as logical fallacies
2. We will apparently forever view the actions of Flynn in polar ways. It is not hyperbole to say that it is borderline treasonous. This isn't a liberal issue. It's a sovereignty issue and a rule of law issue. If Flynn and the administration didn't think it was a big deal to do what he did with the Russian government they wouldn't have lied about it.

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:
But the outrage is over the top - and it wouldn't have been expected under an Obama administration in similar circumstances.

1. Arguing a negative is one of my biggest pet peeves, as far as logical fallacies
2. We will apparently forever view the actions of Flynn in polar ways. It is not hyperbole to say that it is borderline treasonous. This isn't a liberal issue. It's a sovereignty issue and a rule of law issue. If Flynn and the administration didn't think it was a big deal to do what he did with the Russian government they wouldn't have lied about it.

You're just going to have to be peeved then.

I can't speak for Flynn, he should know better but I doubt Trump even knew it was against the law, especially as President Elect.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) would provide relief for America’s 14.5 million permit holders who want to be certain of their carry rights across state lines. Their need is acute: The number of concealed carry permit holders has tripled since Congress first attempted to pass a reciprocity bill in 2008. Donald Trump, our permit-holder-in-chief, has announced his support for an interstate reciprocity law. But is the proposed statute constitutional? Reciprocity for nearly all types of licenses—even driver’s licenses—depends on voluntary arrangements among states, a practice that comports with the Tenth Amendment. Can the federal government compel reciprocity for concealed carry permits?

To find an answer, we must look in an unlikely place: the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The clause empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but since the 1930s, legislators have used it as a pretext to regulate—well, almost anything you can imagine. Worse yet, the U.S. Supreme Court, under the flag of loose constructionism, has largely upheld these laws, creating increasingly Orwellian definitions of both “interstate” and “commerce.” In 1942, for example, the Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate how much wheat a farmer is allowed to grow on his own farm, even if his produce never leaves the state (see Wickard v. Filburn). It only got worse from there.

After decades of dissipating the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court went for broke in Scarborough v. United States. Scarborough held that there need only be a minor connection between firearms and interstate commerce—such as guns having once been shipped across state lines from the factory—for the firearms to be regulated forever afterward under the Commerce Clause. In the wake of Scarborough, several legal scholars ridiculed the theory that “federal power forever infects anything that contacts interstate commerce” (as law professor David Engdahl phrased it). Nevertheless, Scarborough’s precedent today offers genuine constitutional pedigree to concealed carry interstate reciprocity. This fact was not lost on the framers of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, who refer to all handguns as having been “shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce”; that language creates a jurisdictional hook that guarantees the statute will pass constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause.

Let this be a lesson to gun prohibitionists and living constitutionalists z; Given enough time, loose constructionism produces ironic and unintended consequences. Scarborough, a spent shell in the war on original meaning, will become a nuclear bomb in any judicial review of reciprocity under the Commerce Clause.

With a concealed carry permit holder now president of the United States, we have cause for new optimism—interstate reciprocity is probably around the corner. It’s just profoundly ironic that the rudderless ship of loose constructionism now will be the vessel that returns us to liberty’s shore.

"To find an answer, we must look in an unlikely place: the Constitution’s Commerce Clause."

An unlikely place? Jesus christ, they trot out the commerce clause almost first thing whenever there's an issue where the feds want to trump the states. It's the likeliest of likely places...