In 'highly unusual' move, DOJ secretly invited reporters to view texts sent by ousted FBI agents - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — The Justice Department invited a group of reporters to its offices on Tuesday night to view private text messages sent during the 2016 campaign by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, former investigators on the special counsel Robert Mueller's team, Business Insider has learned. President Donald Trump's [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-peter-strzok-trump-russia-texts-2017-12"]allies have seized on the texts[/URL], which were critical of Trump, describing them as evidence that Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in last year's election, including whether members of Trump's campaign colluded with Moscow, has been tainted. The texts were obtained as part of an investigation this year by the DOJ's inspector general into how the FBI handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent who was among those overseeing the Clinton investigation, [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-peter-strzok-trump-russia-texts-2017-12"]was abruptly removed from Mueller's team[/URL] in late July and relegated to the human-resources department. Page left over the summer for unrelated reasons. It is "highly unusual" for the DOJ to release private correspondences that are the subject of an ongoing investigation to Congress, let alone to the press, a source on one of the congressional committees investigating Russia's election interference told Business Insider on Wednesday. The source emphasized that none of the leaks came from Capitol Hill, which obtained the texts from the DOJ separately on Tuesday. "It's appalling behavior by the department," said Matthew Miller, a former DOJ spokesman. "This is an ongoing investigation in which these employees have due-process rights, and the political leadership at DOJ has thrown them to the wolves so Rosenstein can get credit from House Republicans at his hearing today." One source close to the process who requested anonymity to discuss internal DOJ deliberations said the texts were given to reporters in case they did not leak in time for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's public hearing on Wednesday morning. "It is at least debatable whether it was appropriate to turn them over to the Hill in the middle of an ongoing investigation," Miller said. "Under no circumstances was it appropriate to leak them to the press." It is not clear who invited the reporters to view the texts. Asked by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday who authorized the invitation, Rosenstein demurred — but he said there had been a decision that the texts turned over to Congress were fit for public consumption. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin asked Rosenstein whether he knew "of any other occasions in which material in an ongoing investigation was released to reporters." Rosenstein replied: "We consulted with the inspector general to determine that he had no objection to releasing the material. If he had, we would not have released it." A DOJ official provided a statement to Business Insider on Wednesday: "We often provide information we give to Congressional committees to avoid any confusion." Asked whether that also applies during investigations by the inspector general, the official replied, "Statement stands." It is true that the DOJ will sometimes give documents to reporters that it is already going to hand over to Congress. But it is not clear that the DOJ has ever released private text messages to the press that are the subject of an ongoing OIG investigation. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell asked Rosenstein on Wednesday whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions played any role in inviting the reporters over to the DOJ. "Not to my knowledge," Rosenstein replied. Asha Rangappa, a former FBI counterintelligence agent, said that if the invitation was approved by Sessions' office, it could be "a violation of his recusal" from investigations in which he has a conflict of interest. Rangappa said she had "never heard of DOJ interfacing directly and privately with reporters, outside of an official press conference." "Especially when there is still an ongoing internal investigation," she added. "Both FBI and DOJ have press offices that should be fielding questions from reporters on behalf of the agency." [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-page-texts-mueller-russia-trump-2017-12[/URL] Surprised not to see this posted. It looks like a possible attempt to gin up outrage in order to mitigate backlash to curtailing the investigation or firing Mueller outright. Worth noting that A) no evidence has been provided that shows any bias on the part of anyone attached to Muellers team has had any effect on this investigation thus far and B) regardless of that, he was let go from the investigation back in July.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52974798][URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-page-texts-mueller-russia-trump-2017-12[/URL] Surprised not to see this posted. It looks like a possible attempt to gin up outrage in order to mitigate backlash to curtailing the investigation or firing Mueller outright. Worth noting that A) no evidence has been provided that shows any bias on the part of anyone attached to Muellers team has had any effect on this investigation thus far and B) regardless of that, he was let go from the investigation back in July.[/QUOTE] With this in mind as well as the other recent development of Trump wanting a separate investigation of Mueller's """bias""", it does seem like the pieces are in motion for Trump to genuinely attempt to fire Mueller, which is scary given how spineless the GOP has been in enabling Trump and acting complicit. If people don't protest this and if our government doesn't step up to the mantle of stopping Trump, I fear for the direction of our country - even in the afterglow of the Alabama election, where a hard-red state rejected the Trump/Bannon levels of nihilistic politics.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52974842]With this in mind as well as the other recent development of Trump wanting a separate investigation of Mueller's """bias""", it does seem like the pieces are in motion for Trump to genuinely attempt to fire Mueller, which is scary given how spineless the GOP has been in enabling Trump and acting complicit.[/QUOTE] Even the GOP isn't stupid enough to do nothing if he tried that. Most of the US populace is in support of the investigation and a very significant chunk of their own voterbase is as well.

If the administration moves to impede this investigation, and that obstruction is not met swiftly and decisively by the Republican dominated congress, the only appropriate response from the American public is open revolt. We absolutely cannot allow the basic tenants of our law enforcement and judicial systems to be assaulted so openly, as they are the final line of defense against tyranny and corruption, aside from the public itself.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52974856]Even the GOP isn't stupid enough to do nothing if he tried that. [B]Most of the US populace is in support of the investigation[/B] and a very significant chunk of their own voterbase is as well.[/QUOTE] Most of the US populace supports Net Neutrality too, even including the right (aside from the super rich, r/the_Donald bootlickers, and rural citizens unaware of the topic), but you don't see that stopping the FCC from repealing Net Neutrality - even when it's directly a part of their jobs to take public feedback into consideration. Aside from lucky outliers like the Alabama election outcome, this past year has shown that public opinion simply isn't worth a damn in the majority of cases. I don't have the optimism you do that the GOP will do the right thing.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52974872]Most of the US populace supports Net Neutrality too, even including the right (aside from the super rich and the r/the_Donald bootlickers), but you don't see that stopping the FCC from repealing Net Neutrality - even when it's directly a part of their jobs to take public feedback into consideration. Aside from lucky outliers like the Alabama election outcome, this past year has shown that public outcry isn't worth a damn in the majority of cases. I don't have the optimism you do that the GOP will do the right thing.[/QUOTE] The FCC is run by Ajit Pai. A Trump-appointed corporate shill who fits Trump's "assign them to the place they'll do the most damage to regulations" bill. That's not the same as the Republican party as a whole. The GOP is shit but they're not quite as shitty as Trump and his ilk. (Which says a lot about how shitty Trump and ilk are because the GOP is pretty god damned shit.)

Sadly not surprising considering the WH is coordinating news stories with Fox and other conservative outlets

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52974877]The FCC is run by Ajit Pai. A Trump-appointed corporate shill who fits Trump's "assign them to the place they'll do the most damage to regulations" bill. That's not the same as the Republican party as a whole. The GOP is shit but they're not quite as shitty as Trump and his ilk. (Which says a lot about how shitty Trump and ilk are because the GOP is pretty god damned shit.)[/QUOTE] Trump and the GOP are not the same, I'll agree, but the GOP have shown that they are all too happy to turn a blind eye to the antics of Trump and his goons/plants as long as Obamacare repeal and tax reform are within tantalizing reach. (And also, as long as Trump can appoint hard-right SCOTUS judges too) Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are not strictly with Trump, but you still see them (and other conservative political institutions, and even conservative news outlets) trying to excuse Trump's nepotism, collusion allegations, Twitter outbursts, his aggressive rhetoric with NK, etc. If push comes to shove, and if [I]god forbid[/I] they don't get their tax cuts in, you can bet they will raise all kinds of hell to keep Trump in office until they get their agenda passed. Plus, they get the added bonus of using Trump as an eventual scapegoat for everything controversial passed, even though they have already reaped the benefits of it.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52974895]If push comes to shove, and if [I]god forbid[/I] they don't get their tax cuts in, you can bet they will raise all kinds of hell to keep Trump in office until they get their agenda passed. Plus, they get the added bonus of using Trump as an eventual scapegoat for everything controversial passed, even though they have already reaped the benefits of it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and this is why what I'm saying is pertinent. If they refused to do anything when he tries to fire Mueller, especially after what they have previously said, then he cannot be used as a scapegoat for that specific situation. Supporting Trump if he tries to fire Mueller will do far more damage to them than opposing him and they know it.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52974899]Yeah, and this is why what I'm saying is pertinent. If they refused to do anything when he tries to fire Mueller, especially after what they have previously said, then he cannot be used as a scapegoat for that specific situation. Supporting Trump if he tries to fire Mueller will do far more damage to them than opposing him and they know it.[/QUOTE] I can see the logic, but I'm concerned at how they've stood behind him with all the other red-line thresholds Trump crossed, such as firing Comey, endorsing Roy Moore, etc. I'm sure they're not stupid and that they surely have [I]some[/I] point where the line will be crossed, even for them, but given the past year's events, I'm not so optimistic the red-line for them will be crossed with the firing of Mueller. I'd normally be somewhat inclined to agree with you had they not defended Trump's gaffe of firing Comey by non-ironically saying "it's [I]okay[/I]; the President is just [B][I]new[/I][/B] at politics and doesn't understand what he's doing. [I]That's all![/I] :downs: ". [video]https://youtu.be/IQapPACjX08?t=35[/video]

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52974895]Trump and the GOP are not the same, I'll agree, but the GOP have shown that they are all too happy to turn a blind eye to the antics of Trump and his goons/plants as long as Obamacare repeal and tax reform are within tantalizing reach. (And also, as long as Trump can appoint hard-right SCOTUS judges too) Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are not strictly with Trump, but you still see them (and other conservative political institutions, and even conservative news outlets) trying to excuse Trump's nepotism, collusion allegations, Twitter outbursts, his aggressive rhetoric with NK, etc. If push comes to shove, and if [I]god forbid[/I] they don't get their tax cuts in, you can bet they will raise all kinds of hell to keep Trump in office until they get their agenda passed. Plus, they get the added bonus of using Trump as an eventual scapegoat for everything controversial passed, even though they have already reaped the benefits of it.[/QUOTE] Holyromanemperorsayswhat?

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52974895]Trump and the GOP are not the same, I'll agree, but the GOP have shown that they are all too happy to turn a blind eye to the antics of Trump and his goons/plants as long as Obamacare repeal and tax reform are within tantalizing reach. (And also, as long as Trump can appoint hard-right SCOTUS judges too) Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are not strictly with Trump, but you still see them (and other conservative political institutions, and even conservative news outlets) trying to excuse Trump's nepotism, collusion allegations, Twitter outbursts, his aggressive rhetoric with NK, etc. If push comes to shove, and if [I]god forbid[/I] they don't get their tax cuts in, you can bet they will raise all kinds of hell to keep Trump in office until they get their agenda passed. Plus, they get the added bonus of using Trump as an eventual scapegoat for everything controversial passed, even though they have already reaped the benefits of it.[/QUOTE] When you allow something to happen, you're just as bad if not worse than the person causing that thing to happen.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52975052]When you allow something to happen, you're just as bad if not worse than the person causing that thing to happen.* *Unless you don’t have the influence to do so[/QUOTE] FTFY

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52974877]The FCC is run by Ajit Pai. A Trump-appointed corporate shill who fits Trump's "assign them to the place they'll do the most damage to regulations" bill. That's not the same as the Republican party as a whole. The GOP is shit but they're not quite as shitty as Trump and his ilk. (Which says a lot about how shitty Trump and ilk are because the GOP is pretty god damned shit.)[/QUOTE] The GOP has almost entirely supported Trump on his appointments, for the most part it's entirely their fault that Trump has even been able to put his shills into power.

I'm so sick of the GOP bullshitting up nonsensical "scandals" that disintegrate as soon as you read into them, and are clearly just excuses to stick a bunch of suspicious-sounding keywords into a sentence. Uranium One (blah blah CLINTON FOUNDATION blah blah RUSSIA) seems to have faded so now they're onto this new one where someone within the Mueller probe was found to potentially be biased against Trump, and was immediately fired from the probe as a result. Where's the scandal? "MUELLER blah blah BIASED AGAINST TRUMP!!"

Exactly how much water does any sort of political opposition to Trump hold when it comes to this investigation? It would seem to me that most people have political views, but these investigators are also expected to view the facts objectively. Plus they aren't the ones that directly indict, try, and judge the accused. Therefore, any accusations based on political grudges will fall apart from the word go. Vocal opposition is unprofessional, and Mueller seems to be treating it as such. With all of this in mind, political affiliation seems irrelevant. In hindsight this all sounds really fucking obvious, they just want to smear the investigators and would only be happy with an investigation staffed exclusively by Republican senators.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52974869]If the administration moves to impede this investigation, and that obstruction is not met swiftly and decisively by the Republican dominated congress, [B]the only appropriate response from the American public is open revolt.[/B][/QUOTE] What, exactly, are you advocating?

[QUOTE=catbarf;52976086]What, exactly, are you advocating?[/QUOTE] Mass protests and civil unrest, at a minimum, and the forced removal from office of all government officials who did not move to protect the sanctity of this independent investigation at a maximum. If the administration actually moves to kill the investigation, it would be the death of our democracy as we know it -- a treasonous coup by a tyrant. The end of the rule of law. That must not be allowed to happen. This investigation MUST be allowed to naturally conclude, even if the findings are not what they seem to be pointing towards.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976125]Mass protests and civil unrest, at a minimum, and the forced removal from office of all government officials who did not move to protect the sanctity of this independent investigation. If the administration actually moves to kill the investigation, it would be the death of our democracy as we know it -- a treasonous coup. That must not be allowed to happen. This investigation MUST be allowed to naturally conclude.[/QUOTE] So a civil war where civilians kill scores of each other, one side fighting to overthrow the government, and the other fighting them?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52976131]So a civil war where civilians kill scores of each other, one side fighting to overthrow the government, and the other fighting them?[/QUOTE] Overthrow the government? Do you not understand the consequences of Trump and the GOP killing this investigation? The government ceases to exist as we know it. It would cement Trump as America's first bonafide fide tyrant. If he is able to kill an investigation of this magnitude, one to determine whether he seized power through treason, then he is accountable to nobody and nothing. He is no longer a president, but a dictator. That can never be allowed to happen. This goes beyond partisanship and into the very beating core of the fundamental tenants of what our country is and how it supposed to be run. I am not calling for civil war and murder in the streets, but a march on Washington in which we demand the immediate arrest of all culpable parties and refuse to cow or back down. Relentless protest and occupation. Form a wall around Congress and the White House and refuse to let them pass. Flood the streets with people, lock down the capital. Refuse to restore order in the streets until order in our government has been restored. To do otherwise would mean the end of everything our country is.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976179]I am not calling for civil war and murder in the streets, but a march on Washington in which we demand the immediate arrest of all culpable parties and refuse to cow or back down. Relentless protest and occupation. Form a wall around Congress and the White House and refuse to let them pass. Flood the streets with people, lock down the capital. Refuse to restore order in the streets until order in our government has been restored.[/QUOTE] And when riot cops are arresting people en masse and forcibly ending your protest, like they did with the Keystone pipeline protests, what then? I mean, you are basically declaring the imminent end of democracy as we know it, and then recommending we oust a tyrant through [i]protest[/i]. Not really much of an open revolt- and has protesting a dictator ever worked?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976179]Overthrow the government? Do you not understand the consequences of Trump and the GOP killing this investigation? The government ceases to exist as we know it. It would cement Trump as America's first bonafide fide tyrant. If he is able to kill an investigation of this magnitude, one to determine whether he seized power through treason, then he is accountable to nobody and nothing. He is no longer a president, but a dictator. That can never be allowed to happen. This goes beyond partisanship and into the very beating core of the fundamental tenants of what our country is and how it supposed to be run. I am not calling for civil war and murder in the streets, but a march on Washington in which we demand the immediate arrest of all culpable parties and refuse to cow or back down. Relentless protest and occupation. Form a wall around Congress and the White House and refuse to let them pass. Flood the streets with people, lock down the capital. Refuse to restore order in the streets until order in our government has been restored. To do otherwise would mean the end of everything our country is.[/QUOTE] I think your hyperboles are getting a little extreme there. Our government and democracy will survive Trump, no matter what happens. And yes, you WILL have a civil war if you try to oust any part of the government by force. Not everyone sees things the way you do.

Are you suggesting that we [I]accept[/I] the end of the rule of the law and our Democratic process? That we should shrug and say, "them's the breaks" as a tyrant who seized power through treason destroys the very institutions and systems designed specifically to keep that from happening, effectively claiming absolute power over all three branches of government? If you don't understand yhe seriousness of what we're facing, then, frankly, you have no business discussing it. I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you should be horrified at the implications of what the administration moving to kill this investigation would mean for our nation. It's not partisan politics, but a coup. Our military, law enforcement agencies, judicial system, and Congressional government will be charged with the responsibility to immediately act on such a move, ousting and arresting all responsible from their positions at our leadership, and we as citizens should refuse to restore civil order until as much has occurred.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976358]Are you suggesting that we [I]accept[/I] the end of the rule of the law and our Democratic process? That we should shrug and say, "them's the breaks" as a tyrant who seized power through treason destroys the very institutions and systems designed specifically to keep that from happening? If you don't understand yhe seriousness of what we're facing, then, frankly, you have no business discussing it. I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you should be horrified at the implications of what the administration moving to kill this investigation would mean for our nation. It's not partisan politics, but a coup. Our military, law enforcement agencies, judicial system, and Congressional government will be charged with the responsibility to immediately act on such a move, ousting and arresting all responsible from their positions at our leadership, and we as citizens should refuse to restore civil order until as much has occurred.[/QUOTE] First off, it would not be the end of rule of law nor the democratic process. Investigations aren't subject to double jeopardy, and our democratic process would still be intact just as broken as it's always been. Second, I never said we should just shrug it off. But there is a difference between protesting and trying to force people out of offices that they were duly elected into. Third, there is no way he can destroy the institutions and systems that limit him. Congress and the judiciary will still exist. Fourth, you can't just arrest people in their positions. You can't arrest a president until he is impeached. Also, we've seen a large push for democrats thanks to Trumps antics and the GOP's refusal to distance themselves. The republican party is fractured and only splitting faster. If you want to see chances for a blue wave disappear in a single day, then your idea is fine. Otherwise, let's let the government do it's job, and republicans make asses out of themselves to a point where they will lose. Fifth, you have no right to tell me what I have business discussing (in a general sense) just because I don't like the extent of the rhetoric you are using. I can usually respect your point of view and see the truth in it. But with this? You are starting to get as bad as the people who thought Obama was going to destroy the country and bring in socialism. I'm not saying that none of this is serious, because I agree with you that it is, and I would support efforts to remove him through the proper channels should that happen. But bring it down a notch. De-stress yourself. Be outraged, but be a constructive and productive outraged. You're honestly starting to worry me a little bit.

Lets just let Trump go unimpeded until we get another Reichstag fire yeah, seems like a good idea. Republicans often talk about how they'll revolt at the slightest provocation when Obama was in office, but now the tables have flipped it seems lmao, at least judging from the posts in this thread by Silence. The cancerous mass of the Republican party has finally matured into a full-blown tumor on this country it seems. I pray the majority of the american public sees this as I do and the republicans get their comeuppance in 2018. [editline]14th December 2017[/editline] And by the polls, it seem most do.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52976302]I think your hyperboles are getting a little extreme there. Our government and democracy will survive Trump, no matter what happens. And yes, you WILL have a civil war if you try to oust any part of the government by force. Not everyone sees things the way you do.[/QUOTE] So if Trump removes Mueller from his post, your response would be nothing? You wouldn't care? React? You wouldn't consider democracy severely damaged at that point? Well that's too bad, because it would be severely damaged at that point, and it would be irrevocably damaged if you and your country men do nothing about it. [editline]14th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52976483]First off, it would not be the end of rule of law nor the democratic process. Investigations aren't subject to double jeopardy, and our democratic process would still be intact just as broken as it's always been. [/QUOTE] I think it would be FAR more damaging than you are leading on. It would effect a mindset, that mindset would rule the next 10-20 years of decisions made in the United States, leading to a feedback loop. [QUOTE]Second, I never said we should just shrug it off. But there is a difference between protesting and trying to force people out of offices that they were duly elected into. [/QUOTE] Duly elected official removes the person investigating him of criminal suspicions, Democracy isn't damaged, or hurt? It clearly is. [QUOTE]Third, there is no way he can destroy the institutions and systems that limit him. Congress and the judiciary will still exist. [/QUOTE] The GOP and Republicans seem pretty happy to destroy LITERALLY ANYTHING to get a "WIN". They have made this clear in their rhetoric, and in their attempt to elect Roy Moore, in their dogged pursuit of Net Neutrality, and in other fields like Taxes and Healthcare. Anything they can get done is a "Win" to them, even if it is matter of factly against what they wanted. It's a partisan nightmare right now. Trusting that group to preserve democracy when they stand to gain from it's demise is batshit. [QUOTE]Fourth, you can't just arrest people in their positions. You can't arrest a president until he is impeached. Also, we've seen a large push for democrats thanks to Trumps antics and the GOP's refusal to distance themselves. The republican party is fractured and only splitting faster. If you want to see chances for a blue wave disappear in a single day, then your idea is fine. Otherwise, let's let the government do it's job, and republicans make asses out of themselves to a point where they will lose. [/QUOTE] If Trump removed Mueller, all of what you said isn't important anymore. That's why BDA's rhetoric is what it is at this point. Because even if he did that, we apparently will have apologists who suggest we do nothing, but probably wouldn't have felt AT ALL the same under Obama. [QUOTE]Fifth, you have no right to tell me what I have business discussing (in a general sense) just because I don't like the extent of the rhetoric you are using. I can usually respect your point of view and see the truth in it. But with this? You are starting to get as bad as the people who thought Obama was going to destroy the country and bring in socialism. I'm not saying that none of this is serious, because I agree with you that it is, and I would support efforts to remove him through the proper channels should that happen. But bring it down a notch. De-stress yourself. Be outraged, but be a constructive and productive outraged. You're honestly starting to worry me a little bit.[/QUOTE] You're finding ways to mitigate the seriousness of Trump possibly removing Mueller. If you want to tell him to calm down and act more rationally, I have to tell you to examine this situation more critically. [editline]14th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;52976240]And when riot cops are arresting people en masse and forcibly ending your protest, like they did with the Keystone pipeline protests, what then? I mean, you are basically declaring the imminent end of democracy as we know it, and then recommending we oust a tyrant through [i]protest[/i]. Not really much of an open revolt- and has protesting a dictator ever worked?[/QUOTE] So what would be the solution to Trump removing Mueller?

Do republicans turn on their own so easily in other situations? Mueller was nominated by bush and unanimously voted by the senate in 2001 as head of the FBI and was given an extension by Obama, I believe he's respected by both parties, and i'm optimistic that the senate would protect Mueller from being fired, especially with the one person gop majority in the senate after january.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;52976676]Do republicans turn on their own so easily in other situations? Mueller was nominated by bush and unanimously voted by the senate in 2001 as head of the FBI and was given an extension by Obama, I believe he's respected by both parties, and i'm optimistic that the senate would protect Mueller from being fired, especially with the one person gop majority in the senate after january.[/QUOTE] I have no confidence that the spineless GOP would protect Mueller if they thought they could get away with not protecting Mueller.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52976483]First off, it would not be the end of rule of law nor the democratic process. Investigations aren't subject to double jeopardy, and our democratic process would still be intact just as broken as it's always been. Second, I never said we should just shrug it off. But there is a difference between protesting and trying to force people out of offices that they were duly elected into. Third, there is no way he can destroy the institutions and systems that limit him. Congress and the judiciary will still exist. Fourth, you can't just arrest people in their positions. You can't arrest a president until he is impeached. Also, we've seen a large push for democrats thanks to Trumps antics and the GOP's refusal to distance themselves. The republican party is fractured and only splitting faster. If you want to see chances for a blue wave disappear in a single day, then your idea is fine. Otherwise, let's let the government do it's job, and republicans make asses out of themselves to a point where they will lose. Fifth, you have no right to tell me what I have business discussing (in a general sense) just because I don't like the extent of the rhetoric you are using. I can usually respect your point of view and see the truth in it. But with this? You are starting to get as bad as the people who thought Obama was going to destroy the country and bring in socialism. I'm not saying that none of this is serious, because I agree with you that it is, and I would support efforts to remove him through the proper channels should that happen. But bring it down a notch. De-stress yourself. Be outraged, but be a constructive and productive outraged. You're honestly starting to worry me a little bit.[/QUOTE] Obama never seized power through treason and then assaulted the Free press and tore down the investigative bodies who had the authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute the crimes committed by him and his administration. Obama's crime was being a "black Muslim Kenyan who hated Christianity and wanted Sharia law." Don't pretend that the legitimacy of these two positions are in any way comparable. The outrage surrounding Trump is based on what he's [B]done[/B], whereas the outrage around Obama was based on [B]who he was.[/B]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976358]Are you suggesting that we [I]accept[/I] the end of the rule of the law and our Democratic process? [/QUOTE] No, but by suggesting we try to use the democratic process after the democratic process fails, you might as well be accepting it. Either the threat to our democratic process is so grave that open revolution is necessary as the last resort to defend the integrity of our society, or you're massively overstating the threat. I keep asking clarifying questions because you seem to believe that this is an existential threat to our society, but then propose a civil response contingent on the democratic process and entirely unsuitable for dealing with a tyrant. I don't think impeding the investigation constitutes 'the end of rule of law and our democratic process'. I think it's a serious issue and a desperate bid to discredit a lawful investigation into the means by which Trump took power, but our institutional political system will persist even if Trump manages to weasel out of his comeuppance. If all else fails, and none of our elected officials do their jobs, we can kick them out at midterm elections and put in place a legislature that will. If the soapbox fails, turn to the ballot box. If that fails too, [I]then[/I] it's time for the cartridge box. And if you [i]really[/i] think that we're currently on the verge of Trump's presidency transforming into full-blown tyranny, then at least suggest a response consistent with that threat. Nothing short of opposition through force is appropriate for preventing the dismantling of the democratic system. No sign-carrying protest has ever stopped a dictator from seizing power, so to suggest that as a suitable response to a [i]tyrannical takeover of the federal government[/i] is just weird.