(12-26-2019 12:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 12:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police (which is not unusual in a case like this, but is her right and is not a crime). Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search when presented with a search warrant. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves (ditto). Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages (ditto). Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police and threatens to retaliate if he does, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.

I assume the bolded parts I inserted were meant by you to be implied, otherwise this does not meet the criteria for obstruction.

Yes on the warrants, and the analogy works better if there are multiple witnesses since I obviously agree that Sara doesn't have to speak to authorities under these circumstances. Again, the biggest flaw to me in the impeachment process was the lack of subpoenas issued for witness testimony by the intelligence committee. Even if they didn't want to litigate the subpoenas after they were refused, they should have still issued the subpoeans. It makes me scratch my head from both a legal and public relations and political standpoint.

The subpoena issue is key, and in your analogy Ronald would be guilty of obstruction if he refused to appear before a grand jury after being issued a subpoena. Ronald is not obligated to speak to the police or the prosecutor. In criminal cases witness testimony cannot be compelled until either a subpoena is issued or the witness voluntarily takes the stand. Testimony before Congress is less clear-cut, but if Congress really wanted something to hang on the Trump administration, refusal to answer a subpoena is black-letter-law obstruction.

Not necessarily. The subpoena that would be in question would not be a criminal or civil subpoena. It would be a Congressional subpoena. And *that* distinction runs smack straight into a 'primacy of the branches' question, along with Executive privilege *and* the attendant qualified and blanket immunities from compelled testimony before Congress that run as part and parcel of that prvilege.

Again, ask Eric Holder that question.

(12-24-2019 12:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?

Under this law, they're 'refusing' to perform weddings for anyone. I don't see any description under which 'more' is somehow worse. Even if all they did was perform them for Baptists, that would still reduce the backlog of Baptists at the JOP office and increase the access for everyone else there.

(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sounds to me like a legal argument. Obviously the Trump administration disagrees.

Lawyers fairly frequently challenge things that 'others' think are obvious.

But it isn't a sound legal argument. None of the privileges I have ever dealt with (including deliberative process, which is under the gambit of different privileges unique to the executive branch) let you turn over nothing or stop the witness from appearing. The witness appears and answers non-privileged questions. Like their name, job title, description of duties, etc. And there are certainly non-privileged substantive questions that they can answer as well. Same thing with documents. Its pretty rare that the entire document is privileged, and even if it is, you typically produce a privilege log that has a brief description of the document and assertion of privilege. The privilege itself is real, but the way the privileged is being employed is ridiculous.

So you've never once seen someone present a blanket denial, have lawyers present their arguments for an against, and the judge decide what is and isn't okay to produce and exclude?

Maybe I'm just not being clear...

Whether Trump wins the argument or not is for a judge to determine. I'm not doing that and not remotely qualified to do so. I am merely defending his right to present whatever defense, however ridiculous it might sound, that anyone else has.

Quote:

(12-20-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But you're talking about a trial, and this wasn't a trial. It was a hearing. It was more like a grand jury/indictment phase as you said... but it isn't even really that.

As I said, take away the political biases and I think most people in this country would agree that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defendant doesn't have to testify. If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt.... which makes point 2 a distinction without a difference.

What I find silly is that Pelosi charged Trump with obstruction for failing to appear, and I'm sure Trump would say he didn't because he knows he couldn't get a fair 'trial', which is precisely what Pelosi is now arguing for herself... that she won't present the case to the Senate because she can't get a fair trial

I read stuff like this and I need to force myself to take a few deep breaths and remember that I genuinely like the people that I am interacting with.

First (burden of proof) - I agree the burden of proof rests with the prosecution (in this case most of the Democrats + Amash). But that burden is much lower at the impeachment stage (House) than the conviction stage (Senate). If you want to use criminal prosecutions as an analogy, the grand jury burden of proof is "probable cause" while the trial jury burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Probable cause is pretty easy, beyond a reasonable doubt is quite difficult. So the only burden of proof that has applied so far is very low (using the analogy).

Second (defendant testify) - only Trump is getting impeached. So the idea that Trump doesn't have to testify is correct ... but doesn't have anything to do with Mulvaney, Bolton, or Perry testifying.

Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police. Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves. Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages. Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.

Only listing them to be clear about what I'm responding to and not meaning to come off poorly....

First - Of course, which is IMO part of why Trump didn't participate. I once used the line from My Cousin Vinnie... 'There is NO WAY this isn't going to trial' in order to justify not seriously challenging the prosecutions case. He sees this as a witch hunt with a pre-determined outcome and has declined to participate in the preliminary event. Executive privilege is a real thing, and while you may be 100% correct and it does not apply here, that's a determination for a judge to make. If you were the judge, you'd say no and that's fine... but I don't see that there is a judge here. Instead, the act of using privilege (which is his right to claim, even if it is later determined that it isn't applicable) ITSELF is being used as justification for the impeachment.

Second - I'm pretty sure that privilege applies beyond the accused. It certainly does with spousal privilege so I don't know why it would't with executive privilege

Third - you don't simply charge Sara with obstruction. You go to a judge and get a court order, which she has the right to present a challenge to in the court as well. You leave all of that out. When you charge someone with bribery and then when you require their cooperation in order to get more than 1/2 the jury to agree, and without that you forget about that and charge them with 'failing to cooperate', That's IMO admitting that you didn't have a case to begin with. You are free to disagree, but I don't think most would.

Using the grand jury analogy, that's like using the fact that you claimed spousal privilege to keep your spouse from testifying against before the grand jury, and the prosecution charged you with obstruction of justice for that. Again, I'm not an attorney... I'm telling you how lots of people see this. They see that Trump has the right to as aggressive a defense as he wants to put on, making every claim of privilege or any other attempt to thwart the prosecution that anyone else would have... and that it's up to the prosecution to overcome those claims... not to make the claims the crime.

Quote:

(12-21-2019 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Pelosi is clearly obstructing Justice.

She want's the specter of impeachment to hang over Trump (and the ability to accuse Republicans of bias) without giving Trump the right to a trial (and the probability of an acquittal).

Seriously....
How is this NOT party before country and an obstruction of Justice?

Read 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and explain to me how the elements for obstruction are met by Pelosi's decision to temporarily delay handing off the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Explain to me how your analysis changes if she hands them over after 10 days as opposed to 25 days as opposed to 50 days. Why and how does the difference in timing change your analysis under the relevant federal statutes?

Your link didn't work for me, but it doesn't matter as my comment was more of a headline than a claim of fact. That said.....

If Trump is obstructing Justice by refusing to cooperate with what he sees as an unfair and unjust prosecution in the house, then how is Pelosi not obstructing justice by refusing to cooperate with what she sees as an unfair and unjust defense in the Senate? This isn't a legal question, it's a political one. Justice swings both ways... it's not just about the prosecution. She is denying Trump his day in court.... for what seems to be PURELY political purposes.

It's like a woman killing her abusive husband and a grand jury voting to indict, but the prosecutor declining to pursue because they feel the judge would be sympathetic to the woman... which is fine... but THEN, using the indictment (without a trial where she MIGHT clear her name) to have the woman's kids taken away by CPS.

I fully understand that there is no obligation to prosecute, but she's claiming almost the same thing that Trump is. Unfair process so declining to proceed/participate. Politically, that's a pretty poor argument, even if it IS legally justifiable.

I'm not qualified to render a legal opinion and I'm not saying you wouldn't win your argument... I'm telling you that most people (without a dog in the fight) don't have a problem with people aggressively defending themselves. They see the system as having an advantage when it comes to processes.

(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-24-2019 12:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?

Under this law, they're 'refusing' to perform weddings for anyone. I don't see any description under which 'more' is somehow worse. Even if all they did was perform them for Baptists, that would still reduce the backlog of Baptists at the JOP office and increase the access for everyone else there.

The reason I asked this question is that Cuomo gave this as his rationale for the veto:

"The cornerstones that built our great state are diversity, tolerance, and inclusion. Based on these reasons, I must veto this bill."

Not one of the liberals here has stepped forward to defend this. Not even AtEase.

I think it is no more than knee jerk antagonism toward Trump.

(12-26-2019 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet somehow the entire branch of law dealing with the question of absolute and qualified immunity appears lockstep in every executive privilege case that is out there.

I would agree that the process you outlined is common in civil and criminal contexts. From what I gather, the ambit of qualified and absolute immunity for witnesses isnt an issue in those procedures you talk of.

Those are the heart and soul of the age long battle between Executive power and Congressional power. I dont think your first hand experiences with the privileges you talk of is really on point, with all due respect.

No disagreement from me, this is not my area of expertise (not that I really have one) and I haven't researched the specific issues. From a policy standpoint, as opposed to a legal standpoint, I think witnesses should show up and the across-the-board telling of all witnesses to not appear bothers me, privilege or not. In the civil context, many witnesses testify without needing a subpoena.

(12-26-2019 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually there really is not legal concept of a 'burden of proof' either for an impeachment or any Senate trial. It is a fundamental political act, not a judicial acts that requires attention to the liberties protected by the 'burden' issues.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with having an attendant burden of proof attaching to each situation -- it is kind of ingrained to a sense of 'fair play' for something that surficially is a judicial-type process.analogy).

A fair point. But I think there are pretty strong arguments that the impeachment/grand jury-indictment analogy makes sense. And I think the burden of proof argument also makes sense (lower for impeachment by the House, higher for conviction by the Senate). Otherwise why bother to have 2 processes with different rules? Or did Hamilton write on that one?

(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So you've never once seen someone present a blanket denial, have lawyers present their arguments for an against, and the judge decide what is and isn't okay to produce and exclude?

Maybe I'm just not being clear...

Whether Trump wins the argument or not is for a judge to determine. I'm not doing that and not remotely qualified to do so. I am merely defending his right to present whatever defense, however ridiculous it might sound, that anyone else has.

Fair enough. I just wish more Judges would sanction attorneys for making patently ridiculous arguments. If the arguments are not ridiculous, certainly they should make them. If the arguments are ridiculous, then attorneys should be sanctioned for making them. tanq is suggesting that my personal experiences with other privilege assertions doesn't really apply to what is going on here. He may be correct and I'll admit that I haven't delved into the legal research (or even dipped a toe into it). If tanq is correct, you can ignore a healthy portion of what I wrote (oops).

(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If Trump is obstructing Justice by refusing to cooperate with what he sees as an unfair and unjust prosecution in the house, then how is Pelosi not obstructing justice by refusing to cooperate with what she sees as an unfair and unjust defense in the Senate? This isn't a legal question, it's a political one. Justice swings both ways... it's not just about the prosecution. She is denying Trump his day in court.... for what seems to be PURELY political purposes.

It's like a woman killing her abusive husband and a grand jury voting to indict, but the prosecutor declining to pursue because they feel the judge would be sympathetic to the woman... which is fine... but THEN, using the indictment (without a trial where she MIGHT clear her name) to have the woman's kids taken away by CPS.

I fully understand that there is no obligation to prosecute, but she's claiming almost the same thing that Trump is. Unfair process so declining to proceed/participate. Politically, that's a pretty poor argument, even if it IS legally justifiable.

I'm not qualified to render a legal opinion and I'm not saying you wouldn't win your argument... I'm telling you that most people (without a dog in the fight) don't have a problem with people aggressively defending themselves. They see the system as having an advantage when it comes to processes.

I guess the bolded part is what bothers me. If you use legal terms like "obstruction of justice" then you are making a legal argument, not a political one. So if you wrote the same idea but didn't use legal terminology, it wouldn't bother me. But when you use legal terms, it sounds like you are getting ready to chant "lock her up" which makes zero sense to me in this context. Just like "conspiracy" is a legal argument while "collusion" is a political argument.

As to the rhetorical question I asked you, I don't really have a problem with Pelosi sitting on the articles for a few weeks, especially over the holidays. If the Senate passes their rules for the impeachment trial, then I think anything longer that that would go against what the founders would have intended. I am strongly opposed to the idea of her sitting on it just so it hangs over Trumps head, even if I don't like whatever rules the Senate might agree to.

(12-26-2019 04:09 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So you've never once seen someone present a blanket denial, have lawyers present their arguments for an against, and the judge decide what is and isn't okay to produce and exclude?

Maybe I'm just not being clear...

Whether Trump wins the argument or not is for a judge to determine. I'm not doing that and not remotely qualified to do so. I am merely defending his right to present whatever defense, however ridiculous it might sound, that anyone else has.

Fair enough. I just wish more Judges would sanction attorneys for making patently ridiculous arguments. If the arguments are not ridiculous, certainly they should make them. If the arguments are ridiculous, then attorneys should be sanctioned for making them. tanq is suggesting that my personal experiences with other privilege assertions doesn't really apply to what is going on here. He may be correct and I'll admit that I haven't delved into the legal research (or even dipped a toe into it). If tanq is correct, you can ignore a healthy portion of what I wrote (oops).

As to Ham's comments, I think that what big says applies robustly to the context of civil and criminal litigation.

In the case of a subpoena for testimony, there would be various stopgap arguments made. Typically based upon the privilege asserted.

If a subpoena for testimony is issued, the recipient can move to quash. But, typically the recipient will have to tell some of the issue at the very least to a judge of why the motion to quash an appearance is valid. And, typically the subpoena for testimony is upheld, and the individual then simply recites a litany of objections based on privilege to the proffered questions. But in the civil and criminal litigation, there is no 'immunity' for the person so subpoenaed.

The blanket issue usually applies to an assertion of privilege. As a general rule, if, say an attorney takes the stand, the attorney typically simply asserts the privilege from the get go, as does the attorney now representing the first attorney's client. Then a judge comes in and sets the bounds of the questions and answers.

In one case, an ex-client of mine was sued on a business matter that I had tangential knowledge of. When I got the subpoena -- I went to the hearing. When I was called, anything outside the range of whom I was, I, and the attornies representing the client in the matter, simply declined to answer based on privilege.

Only when a judge made a ruling that an exception applied, and that I was free to testify did I answer any specific questions.

But in the case of executive immunity, the executive branch has a powerful tool not available to any other form of privilege -- it is immunity to testify for people whom are being called and have privileged information. That immunization to subpoena is not absolute; but it does exist. And that immunity from testimony is unique to that privilege.

But the issues here are not court-issued subpoenas, or legal process subpoenas. The issues here arent even subpoenas to be frank, they are a decision not to make people available for testimony.

As for big's question on *why* Congress didnt go down the path -- the answer to me is easy. There is only a handful of cases dealing with Executive privilege and another handful dealing with the scope of immunity. And almost no cases dealing with the combination of Congressional subpoena *and* executive privilege or the attendant immunity.

The subpoena power of Congress, because of the lack of caselaw, is literally as large as Congress can grab. But, a legal fight over the subject stands a decent chance of 'writing lines into the sand'. And having such explicit lines in an otherwise invisible boundary isnt necessarily a good thing for the breadth of that power.

To clarify something, while the House Intelligence Committee did not subpoena any witnesses, it did subpoena documents from various agencies and federal government employees. To my knowledge (just based on reporting that I saw 3-4 weeks ago), the executive branch had not complied with those subpoenas.

Gents: interesting discussion! I've enjoyed reading along.

(12-26-2019 07:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  To clarify something, while the House Intelligence Committee did not subpoena any witnesses, it did subpoena documents from various agencies and federal government employees. To my knowledge (just based on reporting that I saw 3-4 weeks ago), the executive branch had not complied with those subpoenas.

And to that extent they may have a justiciable cause of action --- perhaps not. The executive's use of privilege in withholding such documents in light of subpoenas has a long history.

Once again --- just ask Eric Holder and his response to subpoenas regarding the documents on Fast and Furious.

Pretty sure I have now posted enough here to get me fired. Wish me luck that the guys atop DOJ don’t catch wind and label me the next deep stater!

(12-26-2019 04:09 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This isn't a legal question, it's a political one.

I guess the bolded part is what bothers me. If you use legal terms like "obstruction of justice" then you are making a legal argument, not a political one. So if you wrote the same idea but didn't use legal terminology, it wouldn't bother me. But when you use legal terms, it sounds like you are getting ready to chant "lock her up" which makes zero sense to me in this context. Just like "conspiracy" is a legal argument while "collusion" is a political argument.

As to the rhetorical question I asked you, I don't really have a problem with Pelosi sitting on the articles for a few weeks, especially over the holidays. If the Senate passes their rules for the impeachment trial, then I think anything longer that that would go against what the founders would have intended. I am strongly opposed to the idea of her sitting on it just so it hangs over Trumps head, even if I don't like whatever rules the Senate might agree to.

You're putting words in my mouth so I'm glad we went further. I'm nowhere near chanting lock her up...

Pelosi didn't say that she was sitting on the articles because of the holidays... she said she was sitting on them because she didn't think she could get a fair hearing.... which is in my view the same thing Trump said.... so while I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, she's already told us something different.

While it may not fit the legal definition of 'obstruction of justice' (your correct point) it does in the minds of many (mostly not lawyers) fit the Webster's definition of the words (my point). I gave a decent corollary... It may all be perfectly legal and correct by the law... but I don't think most average people would think it represented 'justice'. Thwarting justice? Denying justice? Abusing justice?

My point is that while I'm perfectly okay with her doing her job, I'm not okay with her doing only the part of it that suits her political purposes.... especially when it involves 'her political enemies'... and especially when that is what she's accusing Trump of doing.

Hambone10 - Alexander Hamilton and other founders warned us of what Trump is accused of doing. I don't think there is anything similar regarding if Pelosi sits on the impeachment and does not pass it to the Senate. So while I think both are bad, I don't think they are comparable or corollaries. But we can just disagree on that one. And Pelosi is smart and knows she will start leaking moderates members if she plays this game too long. So I really don't think reality will end up matching what you are concerned about.

Also, I wasn't trying to suggest that you personally were about to chant "lock her up" as that is not my impression. My point was that if you articulate an argument that sounds like you believe someone committed a crime (like obstruction of justice), then the next logical step is that you believe the person should be punished accordingly. But there is obviously a big gap between believing the person should be punished under the law and chanting "lock her up", I was just engaging in a bit of hyperbole and generalization.

(12-27-2019 12:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While it may not fit the legal definition of 'obstruction of justice' (your correct point) it does in the minds of many (mostly not lawyers) fit the Webster's definition of the words (my point).

I remember back during the Clinton impeachment, there were people saying that what Bill did was not technically perjury. But for me and millions of others, "lying under oath" was good enough for me to call it perjury.

Biden says he would not comply with a Senate subpoena

Wasn't this a bad thing when when some refused to comply with a House subpoena? Is this another case of double standard? Is it OK for a leading Presidential candidate to just ignore a subpoena because he doesn't like it?

This article is from the Des Moines Register, which should pass the Journalism test.

(12-14-2019 11:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah - I would never call any of y’all his base. I would probably call you and OO supporters and Owl#’s as something less supportive.
Why is it so hard to understand that there are varying degrees of support for someone, and perhaps unique ways to describe those individuals?

I do not support Donald Trump at all—except when the alternative is anybody in the democrat presidential field. As for voting in 2020, I will probably take a democrat ballot in the primary and write in Hillary. At this point I think I probably prefer Trump to Hillary, but she is light years more preferable to me than any democrat in the presidential field. In the general, I will vote libertarian if I can, Trump if I must. That is to say that if Texas looks competitive, I will vote Trump over any democrat, if not then I will vote libertarian.

I do like this statement in retrospect:

Quote:and perhaps unique ways to describe those individuals?

I was quite charmed with the 'unique way[]' he described, specifically and explicitly mind you, 'supporters' in the original. And to which he doubled down on.

(12-27-2019 12:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While it may not fit the legal definition of 'obstruction of justice' (your correct point) it does in the minds of many (mostly not lawyers) fit the Webster's definition of the words (my point).

But the charge is not “obstruction of justice” but rather “obstruction of Congress,” which appears to be a made-up term chosen because it sounds like “obstruction of justice.”

Per the Constitution, the president gets to obstruct congress in multiple ways. The most obvious is the veto power, where the president gets to thwart the will of Congress completely, unless Congress can override. The question here is whether this is one of those ways. That kind of dispute between branches is properly for the third branch, not the Congress, to decide.

(12-27-2019 12:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While it may not fit the legal definition of 'obstruction of justice' (your correct point) it does in the minds of many (mostly not lawyers) fit the Webster's definition of the words (my point).

But the charge is not “obstruction of justice” but rather “obstruction of Congress,” which appears to be a made-up term chosen because it sounds like “obstruction of justice.”

Per the Constitution, the president gets to obstruct congress in multiple ways. The most obvious is the veto power, where the president gets to thwart the will of Congress completely, unless Congress can override. The question here is whether this is one of those ways. That kind of dispute between branches is properly for the third branch, not the Congress, to decide.

Let me say it differently...

What most in the middle see is people like Pelosi and Biden gaming the system for their own purposes while accusing Trump of gaming the system for his own purposes.

(12-31-2019 02:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me say it differently...

What most in the middle see is people like Pelosi and Biden gaming the system for their own purposes while accusing Trump of gaming the system for his own purposes.

Yep. Same old double standard.