EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Is he ginning up the base, or playing with fire: a constitutional crisis? Nixon did this. Some of us here are old enough to remember how that worked out. It's deja vu all over again...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump ... 59750.html
Our banana republic:
We need to remember that Nixon was never found guilty of a crime, though several of his cohorts went to prison. He was forced to resign when the situation became unsustainable.
I guess the intention of floating all of this is to taint and discredit Mueller, his investigation and the eventual findings.
If, after all this time, nothing actionable has been found, what is the point of continuing? Suspicion of a crime should be investigated by law enforcement, FBI, CIA, HS, NSA ... whichever is appropriate (not Congress). Proof of the crime with incriminating evidence should bring about indictment of the suspect by s DOJ prosecutor (not Congress). A trial should be held in the courts (not Congress). True, Congress has the authority to mount this dog and pony show, but they should not have that power; it represents a conflict of interest at the very least. The DOJ should be as independent of the Administration and Congress as the Supreme Court is.
None of that has happened. No proof of any connection between the Russian meddling and Trump has been found, in spite of the constant drumbeat. Congress is avoiding the inconvenient job they were all elected to do, which is to legislate, by keeping the focus on this non-story.
Nothing actionable? (And we're not even six months into this administration. We remember how long the Watergate investigation took):
Flynn was forced to resign one month into his job. Kushner, Sessions and Flynn have all been accused of misleading officials about their contacts with Russians. Kushner discussed a secret back channel with the Russian ambassador. Pence was in charge of the transition team that hired these people, claiming that he knew nothing about any of this. Trump has yet to release his tax returns. He has openly stated that he wants the investigation to stop after firing Preet Bahrara, ( https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump ... 00083.html ) Yates, then Comey, and now indirectly threatening Mueller, all of whom were investigating him and his campaign. If Trump and his cronies have nothing to hide, why all the lying, firing, and contagious amnesia, specifically pertaining to Russia?
I will attempt to keep informed. As I said before, if you find any of my facts incorrect, correct them with some evidence. If I'm boring and annoying, so be it, there are plenty of other threads. I will at least know that I didn't remain silent, with my head in the sand. And by the way, when I criticize Trump and his administration, that should not be interpreted as a criticism of anyone who voted for him. They all had their reasons. But those who continue to defend him, despite all the evidence showing him to be inept at the very least, I fail to understand. I remember people who continued to defend Nixon after he resigned. Some still do...
Given Mr Trump's widely recognized and easily verified propensity to lie, is there any sound reason to believe that lying under oath would be beneath him ?
And, isn't it abundantly clear that the party in any dispute which makes much more of leaks and leakers, than about the contents of the leaked information, is the party which has the most to lose should all the facts become known ?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... hy-o-brien
His own worst enemy:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/ ... repo/?=RSS
By tweeting about the "phony" obstruction investigation, he has confirmed that it is a fact that he is being investigated. Does he know this? Do his attorneys not mind his tweets, which consistently work to his disadvantage?
As I recall, attacking the leakers and avoiding mention of the information leaked was the standard practice of the Clinton campaign. With Hillary, the leaks were all about facts, while what has been "leaked" about Trump has been rumor, innuendo and speculation based thereon, obstruction of justice being the latest "guilty before proven innocent" campaign. So much smoke, and no sign of fire.