How will President Obama be remembered by the Jewish people?
As a secular Jew, I will remember him first as an American president, not his relationship to Israel. As a president I will remember him as an exceptional leader, orator, human being. He brought class and respect to the white house, by always being thought through and bring open minded and trying his best in the fact of a gridlocked congress and some difficult questions. As an American Jew, he was my leader for issues like gun violence, and lead he did, showing us how much he truly cared about these things, and holding his head up high even in the face of so much criticism and gridlock. To me, he appreciated and promoted the Jewish values of learning, intelligence and openness beyond our own groups. There were things I didn't agree with, but all of them will be overshadowed by the unforgivable way Congress treated him. That his appointee to the Supreme Court, a wonderful Jew by the way, Garland did not deserve this, should not even get a hearing? It infuriated so many and I believe his modeling patience and restraint prevented anger from getting destructive.I will also remember that his legacy goes hand in hand with a time my fellow brethren showed a less admirable side. The incredible outcry against the UN resolution was laden with hype and misinformation, with the good feeling of simplifying a terrible middle Eastern crisis into the singular doing of an “antisemitic” President. The hysteria was devoid of any nuance, and fairness or honesty. We Jews “went low.” That's how I'll remember it.
Why won't Trump assist the Russian interference investigation rather than trying to hamper it?
Not a week goes by without Trump reminding us that he holds himself to much lower standards on pretty much everything, than he does anyone who he loaths. Most of us would hold ourselves to a higher standard than people we consider to be absolutely horrible, morally corrupted pond scum. Not so with Trump:He has such a tough mouth on him and is so good at “telling it like it is”, that it's okay for him to turn to this establishment diplomacy at times when toughness actually means something. He is such an honest and smart guy that it is okay for him to compulsively lie and act and say amazingly stupid stuff 24–7.Remember how he, an ordinary US citizen, hounded, berated and nagged the US President like a little child, to have him release his birth certificate? Something that no President had ever been expected to do before? Remember how Trump said that Obama “must be hiding something horrible, he must be a Muslim or something” since he didn't release it right away? Remember how Obama eventually released his birth certificate even if he didn't have to, just to shut the noisy, compulsive nagger's mouth? Remember when Trump was asked to release his tax returns, like every candidate has been expected to do for transpiracy reasons, and how he said yes, later, yes, maybe later, no, no, never gonna happen?The Russia investigation is a little different. They have dug up numerous on camera interviews, some of which are not that old, where he has talked at length about his “substantial business deals with Russia”, and how he can get all the money he needs there. He has also on several occations said, fairly recently, that he doesn’t have and never had, business dealings of financial ties to Russia. No brain power needed to get that one of these versions represents a repetitious lie. Now he gets a taste of his own medicine, and he does not like it! He will not tolerate it when others turn around and mimic him.Donald J. Trump is highly suspicious when people don't immediately let everything out in the open to be scrutinized, because - and I quote: “People don't act like that unless they have something very bad to hide”.SoIf you are so innocent, Mr. President, it is time you start acting like an innocent man. And if you truly put America first, assist those who want to protect her from intrusive, foreign forces. It is about time, Mr. President, that you now, finally, begin telling it like it is!
What was the record of corruption in the Clinton Administration?
A recent letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic claims, "...during the eight years of the Clinton Administration: Just 61 indictments or criminal charges, 33 convictions, 14 imprisonments, and the president lost his license as a lawyer." Is all of the above true?
Why did Robert Mueller punt on obstruction of justice on Trump?
The President can fire anyone in the Executive Branch for any reason, with or without cause. He is the President, and he doesn't have to check with his Political adversaries for approval. He also did not commit any action that could be considered obstruction of Justice, refer back to my first statement. You will find that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DOJ have worked with Obama, Clinton et al to conspire against Trump before and after he won the election. Comey, Brennan, and Clapper may be indicted for perjury and Treason along with Obama, Clinton, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr, Holder, Lynch, Rosenstein, and countless others. Just remember when Matt Lauer didn't follow the script of questions he was given to ask Clinton. Clinton became psychotic and threw a glass of water in her assistant's face back stage and screamed, “I will get that fu--ing Lauer fired for this”, then continued with the tirade referring to Trump stating : “ If that fu--ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses. ….. and if I lose it's all on your heads for screwing this up” I am sure there will be Military Tribunals and summary judgment on the two highest value criminals in this matter, Obama and Clinton. Treason is a death penalty offense.
Is it not obstruction of justice for Trump to illegally appoint Matthew Whitaker as Attorney General in an effort to shut down Mueller's Trump/Russia investigation?
Thanks for the A2A, RikiFiring Sessions is well within Trump’s authority.Appointing Whitaker is a much more interesting case. (Matthew Whitaker's Appointment as Acting Attorney General: Three Lingering Questions) Whitaker was not Senate confirmed, but is being put into a “principal officer” position, which requires confirmation. Last year, Republicans argued that anyone acting as a principal officer is a principal officer - this was part of a campaign saying that Robert Mueller’s appointment should not count because Mueller was also not Senate-confirmed, but acts as a principal officer. The argument was a great deal weaker there (since Mueller reports to the AG) than in the case of Whitaker (who is the AG.) But whether the courts rule anyone has standing to challenge it would be really complicated.Ordering the Mueller probe shut down (directly or through Whitaker) would certainly trigger a court case. Trump’s lawyers have argued that any action the President takes that falls under his Constitutionally mandated authority cannot be obstruction of justice, because the action is lawful, regardless of whether the motivation is corrupt. How the Courts rule on that would basically determine if, as Nixon said, “It isn’t illegal if the President does it.” In theory, an acceptance of Dowd’s theory would allow Trump to, say, declare Jim Acosta a national security threat and not merely bar him from the White House, but also obliterate him, his home, and his family with a Hellfire missile and see no consequences. I rather think his base would like that idea - so long as no Democrat gets their hands on similar power.Original question:Is it not obstruction of justice for Trump to illegally appoint Matthew Whitaker as Attorney General in an effort to shut down Mueller's Trump/Russia investigation?
Does the Post Office close for every President's death?
Hey, I work for the P.O and yes in mourning the Post Office closes after a president dies, and a day of mourning is usually set by the President. It did close with Reagan died also. It is common practice.
Trump says the Democrat-controlled oversight committee is going "nuts" on him, and that Republicans never did this to Obama. Why does Trump say this?
Shockingly, this is one of the few things I have heard come out of Trump that has some truth associated with it.Firstly, because the Oversight Committee has been co-opted by obstructionist, head-in-the-sand, Republican tactics while they were in control for the first 2 years of the Trump presidency, the committee is now quite busy as they are trying to compensate for 2 years of essentially suspended functioning. To the extent that there is a lot of catch-up to accomplish, I guess you could say they are “going nuts”…just not in the way that Trump probably meant it.Secondly, the Republicans had relatively little to work with when Obama was in office because his personal conduct, the activities of his cabinet members, and the work of his staff were all carried out in a manner which stayed largely within the bounds of acceptable moral and ethical behavior. So, yes, Republicans were not able to go “nuts” on Obama through formal Congressional committees in a major way, at least compared to the target-rich environment that Trump and his administration presents. Obama personally did get in trouble for offenses like putting his feet on his desk, or wearing a tan suit, etc., but there is a reason he was called “no-drama Obama.” And it’s true that Republicans tried to bedevil his administration with interminable, generally baseless investigations such as Benghazi, the supposed IRS targeting of conservative organizations, etc.; but these distractions never ended up going much of anywhere because they were contrived rather than based on actual corrupt activities. The Republicans were resourceful in mining for things that could damage Obama, but the mining operations kept producing Fool’s Gold. If they had latched onto something over those 8 years that really was significant, I am sure they would have had no problem “going nuts.”