Hello Greg,

>LL>Did Spiro Agnew commit a crime(s)?  Yes, as he plead guilty.
>LL>Did Donald J. Trump commit a crime(s)?  Yes, even though he has
>LL>never plead guilty or not guilty.  Does it matter that neither
>LL>of them was indicted by the DOJ?  Not at all.

>With Spiro, real crimes were committed, so it stands to reason that the
> indication of pleading guilty was the right thing to do.

Agnew plead guilty after leaving office in disgrace.  Made a plea
deal with the prosecutor to keep himself out of jail.

Donald Trump may be guilty as hell, of whatever folks want to accuse
him of having done.  But to date he has not been charged.  Not because
he is, or is not, POTUS.

It is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president/vice president.
This was not the case before Watergate.  There was evidence showing
Agnew to have been guilty of having committed various crimes.  Ditto
with Nixon.  AG Elliot Richardson used the threat of indictment to
get Agnew to resign from office.  Nixon was also under investigation
at the time, and had Agnew decided to stay, both would have been
impeached and removed from office at the same time, thus making the
speaker of the house (a Democrat) the POTUS.

After Agnew resigned from office, Nixon needed to protect himself
from the same fate.  That is why he got a lawyer from the DOJ to
write an opinion stating that indicting a sitting president or
vice president would be unconstitutional.  Even though there is no
precedent.  That opinion is the basis of the current DOJ policy.

>The problem is that those principles are being used once again along with
> other recognizable desires of the past that speak of hunting someone down
> and destroying the man known as Donald J. Trump.

Donald Trump has not been accused of having committed any crimes.
Then there is the question as to whatever crimes he may have
committed as having been "high crimes or misdemeanors" as defined
by the Congress, which would make those crimes impeachable offenses.

>The puzzle pieces that they are using today are different and are therefore
> deemed as incompatible, this does not matter to the left leaning
> organizers, they might as well have hammer behind their back, used of
> course to force the pieces to fit but they are becoming bolder and bolder
> to where the hammer is no longer hidden.

How do you define what are "high crimes and misdemeanors"?  Only
the Congress can decide that, as they are the deciders, as stated
in the US Constitution.

A scandal is not a crime.  It may be an embarrassment, but not
necessarily a crime.  Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.  That is
a scandal.  A crime?  Maybe grounds for divorce.  But maybe his
wife lets him do it, and also does the same thing.  It could be
that Donald Trump and his wife do the same thing as the Clintons.
I don't know, and I don't care.  Whatever they do in private is
their own business.

Donald Trump Jr has met with Russians at Trump Tower.  This
was a scandal, but not necessarily a crime.  Even though it is
known that several Russians were involved in trying to disrupt
our elections.

Did then-candidate Donald Trump instruct his son to meet with
Russians at Trump Tower?  If so, for what purpose?  Are we to
believe that Donald Jr was just a naive little boy who got in
over his head?

A lot of people have questions.  Questions they want answered.

>Good Luck with that, they have not been successful with any of these
> attempts, they have all been a dismal miserable failure each and everyone
> of them.

Stonewalling is never successful.  Bob Mueller is scheduled to testify
to Congress on July 24.  This will be the beginning of the end.

>In-fact they are making the President stronger and what the strangest part
> of all of this is that they remain clueless about it.

The latest poll shows four Democrats (Biden, Warren, Harris,
and Sanders) leading Trump.  And tied with an openly gay candidate
- Mayor Pete.

After the president's racist comments ("Go back where you came from"
the next poll will show even more Democrats in the lead.

>There is also truth in facts, where they delinquent with the truth they make
> up as they go along, and then sell it as fact.

Are you okay with a racist president, Republicans?
I'm not.  And most Americans aren't either.  I condemn
his words of hate, as should everybody.  Regardless of
political affiliation (or non-affiliation).

>It is no secret that they do not like Trump

What is there to like?  A man who hates black people and brown
people is not a man to be liked by anybody.  The American people
deserve somebody better than that to be their president.  Even
if that somebody is a woman.  Or an openly gay man, happily
married to another man.

>and have been trying and failing with every attempt to get back to their
> version of Government,

I want a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
What kind of government do you want?

>which is great for themselves, but it creates chaos and uncertainty for the
> American people.

The idea of democracy is correct.  And far better than Trump's
idea of authoritarianism.

>You do know what Make America Great means to the left,

Ronald Reagan's concept of "Make America Great Again" was that
of an optimistic future, where all could work together to make this
place a better world for each and every one of us, including those
who come here from foreign shores to call this land their home.

That is a far concept from whatever version Trump wants to create.

>it is the opposite of President Trump's efforts and agenda in every-way.

Of course it is.  Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan got along great.
Especially after 5 o'clock at the local pub.

>The left views Make America Great Again by having it's citizens being
> dependent on the U.S. Government.

Lifting all boats is certainly far better than sinking all ships.

>Additionally having the U.S. Government being dependent on other nations for
> it's survival - more like minimal life support leaving a nation barely
> alive and in fact crippled with no potential to becoming healthy again.

Encouraging Germany to make a deal to buy natural gas from Russia
has certainly made America great again.  Not only will Germany be
dependent on Russia for natural gas, but so will the rest of Europe,
as those countries will be dependent on Germany to deliver the same
natural gas it gets from Russia.  See how that works?

It is kind of like what happened in the day just before WWII.

Germany and Russia made a deal.
A non-aggression pact.
Each side would get what it wanted.
Germany would get the Balkans.
Russia would get the Baltics.
And both would split Poland.

Of course, Germany reneged on the deal in 1941
and Russia had to then get help from the USA.

What happens when the only source for natural gas that Germany gets
is from Russia?  And what happens when the only source for natural gas
that other European countries get comes from Germany?

Brexit is not about England withdrawing from the EU.  It is about
England withdrawing from Germany.  And with Germany being controlled
by Russia, who do you think will be controlling the USA when Trump
is best pals with Putin?

The Chinese have a saying -

"There can only be one sun that rules the sky."

I hate to tell you, the sun is setting in the USA.

>The left liberal dream is to America inside out, it's efforts include The
> new green deal, that will make combustion engines a thing of the past, no
> planes in the sky either. No great numbers from from the Dow breaking
> records of 27,000 as been reached a few days ago. Socialism covering every
> corner of the U.S. Government.

We have to move forward with better technology, less dependence
on fossil fuels.  Coal is no longer feasable, and of limited supply.
There is a worldwide glut of oil, and prices cannot be sustained.
Investors stand to gain or lose on the market, depending on how it
is doing.  Kind of like playing slots at a casino.  Play long enough,
and the house will win.  Not a sound investment, if you ask me.
Unless you own the casino.

>LL>>When examined why this is their opinion, you find them motivated and
> driv
>LL>> by their hateful and vile liberal agenda and their thirst for power.
>LL>
>LL>Bill Weld (R-MA) is a liberal???

>No he is not liberal but his thirst for power is apparent.

A former federal prosecutor, he was one of the 1000+ signatorees
who says Trump is guilty of obstructing justice.  He is also a
former governor, who understands how to properly exercise the duties
of the chief executive.  That is why he makes a good candidate for
the Republican nomination.

>He is also incredibility stupid if he thinks that he has a snowball chance
> in hell in becoming the next President of the United States of America.

He was the Libertarian Party's choice for Vice President in 2016.
Of course, that was just a warm-up exercise for his run for the
Republican nomination for 2020.  I am sure he will be getting plenty
of votes in Iowa and New Hampshire ...

--Lee

-- 
As Good As It Looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)