obama library what a joke

[Moonshot_1]

1) If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

Let's rephrase that.

1) If a President is beholden to a foreign country for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

Yes, if guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence is a product of an unbiased, non political, criminal investigation.

The standard should be held for the entire political spectrum.

[G-Man]

" Did you hear that George Spelvin did a bad thing? "
" Yes, but there was never any proof of it happening. "
" Well, if it was proven, would you believe it then? "

That's where this conversation has gone.  That's the extent of the whole damn thing.  How childish!

I, for one, am tired of waiting.  If there was something..... anything at all, to tie Trump with Russia in a deal to do something to or take anything from the USA, would they let him sign one more bill into law.  Would they have allowed him to change taxation laws and disarm Obamacare and nominate supreme court justices, if they had anything?

I'm serious here......... Baldo, et al, please help me out.  Wouldn't the other two branches use every checks and balancing act they could come up to stop him from moving ahead with his agenda if there was any real possibility Trump was a foreign agent?  And, if there wasn't anything that anyone could do legally, and there was real proof or evidence, wouldn't they just kill him to stop him?  I mean after all, how can we actually have a foreign agent conducting the country's business and not stop him, right?  Would they wait more than two years for an investigation to bust a couple of liars and still allow Trump to meet with foreign heads of state and make foreign policy?

The reason Trump is still President Trump is because there is nothing to the accusation that he is related politically with/to Russia.  If there was, he would have been gone a long, long time ago.

[Robert]

So answer meats question and what do you get NOTHING, except the idea or that there may be a problem and you have to admit that Trump may be guilty. It makes you put a check mark in the back of your mind that I have to admit this and makes you think guilty. To make you think that there may be trace of guilt all the time Meat never says Hillary should be prosecuted and admit to the crime that she will eventually be arrested for.

Did you ever ask yourself what happened when Obama had all the scandals going and we did not hear a peep from either of them.
 
Why would you ever play this game with someone who cannot be for the prosecution of Hillary.

An saying whats good for the goose is good for the gander, how about justice being blind but they are not for equal justice and in fact cannot see a problem so what does that tell you?

 Its a major mind game and thats about it.

Mueller has already proved bias and in fact was the one that worked with Hillary on selling US uranium to Russia. Now how about that for bias. He picked Page and Strok having an affair to be on his team do you think that there may be a little misjudgement or was this on purpose? Mueller even delivered personally uranium to Russia why would an FBI director be the one to deliver Uranium to Russia under any circumstance?

Campbell tells me his FBI handlers assured him they had briefed Obama and then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, now the Russia special prosecutor, on Rosatom’s criminal activities as part of the president's daily briefing and that agents suggested to him that “politics” was the reason the sale was allowed to go through.

Many investigations and 2 senate investigations and nothing found and also the acting AG says nothing really found either yet that is not enough after 2 years and NO Charges. Really?

Its the same liberal questions, veiled, they can question you and me and question our integrity and honesty to say would you prosecute your own person when they themselves failed at every turn to do the same. Its saying you are not honest and integral in fact may be so delusional that you would not do the right thing.

[Jess from VA]

1) If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

Show me ALL the evidence first, then I'll give you an answer.
 

It’s a question. Notice the If at the beginning ? You will not be held to account by answering.

Bullsh!t, criminality comes in degrees, and so do punishments.

I am for equal justice under law, all presidents included.

[Willow]

Time will tell. Right now there is a bunch of smoke. Until we see the full report it’s just an educated guess.

The question I have that nobody on the right seems to care about :

1) If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

First, my friend, you need to learn what educated guess means.  Before seeing any evidence would be an uneducated guess.

As to impeachment, the Constitution calls for it in cases of treason, bribery, or high crimes.  The high crimes is a bit ambiguous but it doesn't include generally doing something that we don't like.

If any American has been guilty of proven criminal activity he should be treated as the law has dictated.  That would be, of course, any American other than me.  I am not for me being tried or convicted.

The practicality of impeachment has proven to be ineffective.  Impeachment of a president has been done by the House but conviction by the Senate has not occurred.  The reason is that guilty or not the impeachment and conviction votes have been largely dictated by party loyalty.  As the Democrat party is in the majority in House an impeachment is likely possible.  As the Republican party holds the Senate a conviction is highly unlikely.    

[hubcapsc]

If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money

Every time I see something like this it reminds me of another sentiment I,
for some reason, see less often... something about rich people who become
politicians vs politicians who become rich... the latter is the one that seems snakey to me...

-Mike

[¿spoom]

If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money

Every time I see something like this it reminds me of another sentiment I,
for some reason, see less often... something about rich people who become
politicians vs politicians who become rich... the latter is the one that seems snakey to me...

-Mike

Not to mention those that they end up with healthcare and armed protection for life being in charge of our insurance and gun laws... 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Time will tell. Right now there is a bunch of smoke. Until we see the full report it’s just an educated guess.

The question I have that nobody on the right seems to care about :

1) If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

First, my friend, you need to learn what educated guess means.  Before seeing any evidence would be an uneducated guess.

As to impeachment, the Constitution calls for it in cases of treason, bribery, or high crimes.  The high crimes is a bit ambiguous but it doesn't include generally doing something that we don't like.

If any American has been guilty of proven criminal activity he should be treated as the law has dictated.  That would be, of course, any American other than me.  I am not for me being tried or convicted.

The practicality of impeachment has proven to be ineffective.  Impeachment of a president has been done by the House but conviction by the Senate has not occurred.  The reason is that guilty or not the impeachment and conviction votes have been largely dictated by party loyalty.  As the Democrat party is in the majority in House an impeachment is likely possible.  As the Republican party holds the Senate a conviction is highly unlikely.    

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

[Skinhead]

Time will tell. Right now there is a bunch of smoke. Until we see the full report it’s just an educated guess.

The question I have that nobody on the right seems to care about :

1) If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

First, my friend, you need to learn what educated guess means.  Before seeing any evidence would be an uneducated guess.

As to impeachment, the Constitution calls for it in cases of treason, bribery, or high crimes.  The high crimes is a bit ambiguous but it doesn't include generally doing something that we don't like.

If any American has been guilty of proven criminal activity he should be treated as the law has dictated.  That would be, of course, any American other than me.  I am not for me being tried or convicted.

The practicality of impeachment has proven to be ineffective.  Impeachment of a president has been done by the House but conviction by the Senate has not occurred.  The reason is that guilty or not the impeachment and conviction votes have been largely dictated by party loyalty.  As the Democrat party is in the majority in House an impeachment is likely possible.  As the Republican party holds the Senate a conviction is highly unlikely.   

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

What the Clinton/Obama crime families have thus far gotten away with, makes what Nixon did look like skipping school.  Just an educated guess.

[f6john]

Time will tell. Right now there is a bunch of smoke. Until we see the full report it’s just an educated guess.

The question I have that nobody on the right seems to care about :

1) If Trump is beholden to Russia for his money or anything else and it’s shown he has engaged in a conspiracy to subvert our laws, would you be in favor of impeachment ?

First, my friend, you need to learn what educated guess means.  Before seeing any evidence would be an uneducated guess.

As to impeachment, the Constitution calls for it in cases of treason, bribery, or high crimes.  The high crimes is a bit ambiguous but it doesn't include generally doing something that we don't like.

If any American has been guilty of proven criminal activity he should be treated as the law has dictated.  That would be, of course, any American other than me.  I am not for me being tried or convicted.

The practicality of impeachment has proven to be ineffective.  Impeachment of a president has been done by the House but conviction by the Senate has not occurred.  The reason is that guilty or not the impeachment and conviction votes have been largely dictated by party loyalty.  As the Democrat party is in the majority in House an impeachment is likely possible.  As the Republican party holds the Senate a conviction is highly unlikely.    

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

Interesting that you mention country first. Trumps policy during the election and has carried it forward with the first two years of his term. Country first or party first, think you have the parties reversed. Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

[baldo]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

[The emperor has no clothes]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

[..]

Sometimes you just have to stir a pot to make yourself feel relevant.

[baldo]

Sometimes you just have to stir a pot to make yourself feel relevant.

Give it a rest.....

[..]

Sometimes you just have to stir a pot to make yourself feel relevant.

Give it a rest.....

Trivet 

[Skinhead]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

I guess I just don't see your logic here.  What makes you think that any of his supporters would follow him off a cliff? 

Because he is trying to do the things we want, and elected him to do, despite unprecedented opposition by the entrenched, corrupt, system that thought they had screwed the citizens again?  We didn't want Obama care, it was rammed down our throats, and we bitched about it, Trump tried to repeal it.  (BTW, how's that working out for you?  How many more people can now afford health care?  How many that could before OC, can now not?) 

We want a border wall, so did Obama and Clinton and both Bushes, they just didn't do it.  We want Hillary (and the rest of the law breakers) behind bars, we're still waiting on that one but I won't hold my breath. 

Just because we aren't calling for his head after a 2+ year investigation turns up nothing because nothing is there, we would follow him off a cliff?  Really?

[Gavin_Sons]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

I guess I just don't see your logic here.  What makes you think that any of his supporters would follow him off a cliff? 

Because he is trying to do the things we want, and elected him to do, despite unprecedented opposition by the entrenched, corrupt, system that thought they had screwed the citizens again?  We didn't want Obama care, it was rammed down our throats, and we bitched about it, Trump tried to repeal it.  (BTW, how's that working out for you?  How many more people can now afford health care?  How many that could before OC, can now not?) 

We want a border wall, so did Obama and Clinton and both Bushes, they just didn't do it.  We want Hillary (and the rest of the law breakers) behind bars, we're still waiting on that one but I won't hold my breath. 

Just because we aren't calling for his head after a 2+ year investigation turns up nothing because nothing is there, we would follow him off a cliff?  Really?

I'd  like to watch some people jump off a cliff 

[Willow]

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

What bullshit.  You actually have the gall to accuse Republicans of  not putting the country first simply because they don't hate the duly elected president as you do?  You pretend that the Democrats are putting America first?  Convictions of lying?  You think the country would've been better off with the other candidate?  She lied.  Does that not count?

President Donald Trump has already done what caused me to vote for him.  If Ginsburg leases the Supreme Court he will do it again.

I understand how some just don't know any better as they never took the oath.  I understand how some oppose the actions or choices of the duly elected President of the United States.  I don't fully understand how someone who took the oath could continually spout hatred for the duly elected Commander in Chief.  I didn't accept it in regard to Barrack Obama and I don't understand it with President Trump.  I guess maybe the oath was a lie too.  Is that an impeachable offense?

[¿spoom]

A quote for comic relief;

"Merkel defended the pipeline under the Baltic Sea, dismissing the American concerns as unfounded and assuring Ukraine that it won't get cut off from Russian fuel."
 

[Pete]

After reading some of the comments above, I am reminded.

"That to be a true liberal democrat you must be able to deny reality."

Some others might say "and deaf, dumb, blind and stupid", but I would never say that,
as it gives them to way much credit. And the rules of the board would not allow me to say that
anyway and I would never want to violate those rules.   

I suspect that a better description would be terminal TDS. Don'tcha just love it.
Even if you did not vote for and do not like Trump it is a real kick to watch TDS folks
doing back flips. Trying to justify or deny criminal behavior by their chosen leaders/politicians and to ascribe criminal behavior to their political enemies.

Politics is now a 4 letter word folks and it is sad, very sad.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

What bullshit.  You actually have the gall to accuse Republicans of  not putting the country first simply because they don't hate the duly elected president as you do?  You pretend that the Democrats are putting America first?  Convictions of lying?  You think the country would've been better off with the other candidate?  She lied.  Does that not count?

President Donald Trump has already done what caused me to vote for him.  If Ginsburg leases the Supreme Court he will do it again.

I understand how some just don't know any better as they never took the oath.  I understand how some oppose the actions or choices of the duly elected President of the United States.  I don't fully understand how someone who took the oath could continually spout hatred for the duly elected Commander in Chief.  I didn't accept it in regard to Barrack Obama and I don't understand it with President Trump.  I guess maybe the oath was a lie too.  Is that an impeachable offense?

Maybe you should reread what I actually said .

[f6john]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

And what is the legal charge for shenanigans? I think he has been doing his job very well, knowing that the Republican establishment is over on the sidelines wringing there hands wondering what he will do or say next because he just won’t conform to the way we have always done it. No one has gone over a cliff or to hell that I am aware of but I hope you will point it out when it actually happens.

[Bighead]

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

What bullshit.  You actually have the gall to accuse Republicans of  not putting the country first simply because they don't hate the duly elected president as you do?  You pretend that the Democrats are putting America first?  Convictions of lying?  You think the country would've been better off with the other candidate?  She lied.  Does that not count?

President Donald Trump has already done what caused me to vote for him.  If Ginsburg leases the Supreme Court he will do it again.

I understand how some just don't know any better as they never took the oath.  I understand how some oppose the actions or choices of the duly elected President of the United States.  I don't fully understand how someone who took the oath could continually spout hatred for the duly elected Commander in Chief.  I didn't accept it in regard to Barrack Obama and I don't understand it with President Trump.  I guess maybe the oath was a lie too.  Is that an impeachable offense?

Maybe you should reread what I actually said .

Oh I think he read it the way you wrote and the way everyone read it except you and baldo and maybe one other.  

[..]

Maybe, but I remember a time when Republicans put country before party and told Nixon he would be convicted if he didn’t resign. The Republicans of today don’t seem to be up to anything of the sort that puts country first though, I will admit. Maybe they will grow a spine in the future, we will see. As far as educated guesses go, there is proof and convictions already of lying. I would classify that in the evidence category.

What bullshit.  You actually have the gall to accuse Republicans of  not putting the country first simply because they don't hate the duly elected president as you do?  You pretend that the Democrats are putting America first?  Convictions of lying?  You think the country would've been better off with the other candidate?  She lied.  Does that not count?

President Donald Trump has already done what caused me to vote for him.  If Ginsburg leases the Supreme Court he will do it again.

I understand how some just don't know any better as they never took the oath.  I understand how some oppose the actions or choices of the duly elected President of the United States.  I don't fully understand how someone who took the oath could continually spout hatred for the duly elected Commander in Chief.  I didn't accept it in regard to Barrack Obama and I don't understand it with President Trump.  I guess maybe the oath was a lie too.  Is that an impeachable offense?

Maybe you should reread what I actually said .

Oh I think he read it the way you wrote and the way everyone read it except you and baldo and maybe one other.  

 

[baldo]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

I guess I just don't see your logic here.  What makes you think that any of his supporters would follow him off a cliff?  

Because he is trying to do the things we want, and elected him to do, despite unprecedented opposition by the entrenched, corrupt, system that thought they had screwed the citizens again?  We didn't want Obama care, it was rammed down our throats, and we bitched about it, Trump tried to repeal it.  (BTW, how's that working out for you?  How many more people can now afford health care?  How many that could before OC, can now not?)  

We want a border wall, so did Obama and Clinton and both Bushes, they just didn't do it.  We want Hillary (and the rest of the law breakers) behind bars, we're still waiting on that one but I won't hold my breath.  

Just because we aren't calling for his head after a 2+ year investigation turns up nothing because nothing is there, we would follow him off a cliff?  Really?

I'd  like to watch some people jump off a cliff  

Me too, after you ....

[Skinhead]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

I guess I just don't see your logic here.  What makes you think that any of his supporters would follow him off a cliff? 

Because he is trying to do the things we want, and elected him to do, despite unprecedented opposition by the entrenched, corrupt, system that thought they had screwed the citizens again?  We didn't want Obama care, it was rammed down our throats, and we bitched about it, Trump tried to repeal it.  (BTW, how's that working out for you?  How many more people can now afford health care?  How many that could before OC, can now not?) 

We want a border wall, so did Obama and Clinton and both Bushes, they just didn't do it.  We want Hillary (and the rest of the law breakers) behind bars, we're still waiting on that one but I won't hold my breath. 

Just because we aren't calling for his head after a 2+ year investigation turns up nothing because nothing is there, we would follow him off a cliff?  Really?

I'd  like to watch some people jump off a cliff 

Me too, after you ....

I'll roeshamboe you for it, I go first.

[baldo]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

I guess I just don't see your logic here.  What makes you think that any of his supporters would follow him off a cliff? 

Because he is trying to do the things we want, and elected him to do, despite unprecedented opposition by the entrenched, corrupt, system that thought they had screwed the citizens again?  We didn't want Obama care, it was rammed down our throats, and we bitched about it, Trump tried to repeal it.  (BTW, how's that working out for you?  How many more people can now afford health care?  How many that could before OC, can now not?) 

We want a border wall, so did Obama and Clinton and both Bushes, they just didn't do it.  We want Hillary (and the rest of the law breakers) behind bars, we're still waiting on that one but I won't hold my breath. 

Just because we aren't calling for his head after a 2+ year investigation turns up nothing because nothing is there, we would follow him off a cliff?  Really?

I'd  like to watch some people jump off a cliff 

Me too, after you ....

I'll roeshamboe you for it, I go first.

Lolol...I had to put it in the Googler.....I don't know, man.....

[Gavin_Sons]

Quite a change from stain Obama put on our country during his reign.

Unfrickinbelievable.....

Oh, I don’t know. After 2 years of his supporters being ok with his shenanigans, it’s probably time to believe they will follow him off a cliff, into Hell, or wherever he decides to take them.

I guess I just don't see your logic here.  What makes you think that any of his supporters would follow him off a cliff? 

Because he is trying to do the things we want, and elected him to do, despite unprecedented opposition by the entrenched, corrupt, system that thought they had screwed the citizens again?  We didn't want Obama care, it was rammed down our throats, and we bitched about it, Trump tried to repeal it.  (BTW, how's that working out for you?  How many more people can now afford health care?  How many that could before OC, can now not?) 

We want a border wall, so did Obama and Clinton and both Bushes, they just didn't do it.  We want Hillary (and the rest of the law breakers) behind bars, we're still waiting on that one but I won't hold my breath. 

Just because we aren't calling for his head after a 2+ year investigation turns up nothing because nothing is there, we would follow him off a cliff?  Really?

I'd  like to watch some people jump off a cliff 

Me too, after you ....

I'll roeshamboe you for it, I go first.

Lolol...I had to put it in the Googler.....I don't know, man.....

I'm in  I use to play soccer. And plus my wife keeps mine in her purse.

[G-Man]

I see our Left leaning friend CONTINUE to avoid answering, or acknowledging, the most simplistic question.......

If there was anything, anything at all, which demonstrates that the President of the United States was in fact an agent for another country, any country, would he be allowed to sign bills into laws and to make foreign policy?

Their failure to answer this one simple question says all I need to know.  And I'll keep asking it, directly as I have, until they admit to the rest of the world, the reason they refuse to answer this one simple question.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I see our Left leaning friend CONTINUE to avoid answering, or acknowledging, the most simplistic question.......

If there was anything, anything at all, which demonstrates that the President of the United States was in fact an agent for another country, any country, would he be allowed to sign bills into laws and to make foreign policy?

Their failure to answer this one simple question says all I need to know.  And I'll keep asking it, directly as I have, until they admit to the rest of the world, the reason they refuse to answer this one simple question.

If you are referring to me, you asked me not to respond to any of your posts. I'm trying to fulfill your request.

[Gavin_Sons]

I see our Left leaning friend CONTINUE to avoid answering, or acknowledging, the most simplistic question.......

If there was anything, anything at all, which demonstrates that the President of the United States was in fact an agent for another country, any country, would he be allowed to sign bills into laws and to make foreign policy?

Their failure to answer this one simple question says all I need to know.  And I'll keep asking it, directly as I have, until they admit to the rest of the world, the reason they refuse to answer this one simple question.

If you are referring to me, you asked me not to respond to any of your posts. I'm trying to fulfill your request.

  good excuse. That's what I'd say also if I were caught with my pants down.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I see our Left leaning friend CONTINUE to avoid answering, or acknowledging, the most simplistic question.......

If there was anything, anything at all, which demonstrates that the President of the United States was in fact an agent for another country, any country, would he be allowed to sign bills into laws and to make foreign policy?

Their failure to answer this one simple question says all I need to know.  And I'll keep asking it, directly as I have, until they admit to the rest of the world, the reason they refuse to answer this one simple question.

If you are referring to me, you asked me not to respond to any of your posts. I'm trying to fulfill your request.

  good excuse. That's what I'd say also if I were caught with my pants down.

You can say what you wish with your pants down. If you don't believe me ask Gary yourself.

[Gavin_Sons]

I see our Left leaning friend CONTINUE to avoid answering, or acknowledging, the most simplistic question.......

If there was anything, anything at all, which demonstrates that the President of the United States was in fact an agent for another country, any country, would he be allowed to sign bills into laws and to make foreign policy?

Their failure to answer this one simple question says all I need to know.  And I'll keep asking it, directly as I have, until they admit to the rest of the world, the reason they refuse to answer this one simple question.

If you are referring to me, you asked me not to respond to any of your posts. I'm trying to fulfill your request.

  good excuse. That's what I'd say also if I were caught with my pants down.

You can say what you wish with your pants down. If you don't believe me ask Gary yourself.

So you were giving him his wish of not responding to him by responding to him?

[Wizzard]

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!  Never forget.

[MAD6Gun]

I see our Left leaning friend CONTINUE to avoid answering, or acknowledging, the most simplistic question.......

If there was anything, anything at all, which demonstrates that the President of the United States was in fact an agent for another country, any country, would he be allowed to sign bills into laws and to make foreign policy?

Their failure to answer this one simple question says all I need to know.  And I'll keep asking it, directly as I have, until they admit to the rest of the world, the reason they refuse to answer this one simple question.

If you are referring to me, you asked me not to respond to any of your posts. I'm trying to fulfill your request.

  good excuse. That's what I'd say also if I were caught with my pants down.

You can say what you wish with your pants down. If you don't believe me ask Gary yourself.

So you were giving him his wish of not responding to him by responding to him?

 Makes sense to me Gavin.......NOT...

[¿spoom]

Meanwhile, on the library front;

CHICAGO (AP) A judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a lawsuit filed by a parks-advocacy group that aims to stop for good the delayed construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential center in a Chicago park beside Lake Michigan.

Some supporters of the project fear the lawsuit filed by Protect Our Parks could force Obama who launched his political career in Chicago to build the Obama Presidential Center elsewhere.

A 2016 lawsuit brought by another group helped to scuttle a $400 million plan by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas to build a museum on public land on Chicago's lakefront. That museum is under construction in Los Angeles .

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey heard arguments last week on the city's motion to dismiss the suit and was largely focused on whether the group had standing to sue.

Judge Blakey did toss parts of the suit in his Tuesday ruling, but concluded that the group has standing because they represent taxpayers with concerns that providing parkland in the public trust to the Obama center violates their due-process rights.

Blakey's ruling doesn't mean the group will necessarily prevail, but confirms that the suit poses a formidable threat to the project. The judge indicated that he doesn't want the litigation to drag out, and that he would strictly limit any fact gathering leading up to trial to 45 days.

Plans call for the center to be built in Jackson Park, which was named after President Andrew Jackson and was a site for the Chicago World's Fair in 1893. The site 7 miles (11 kilometers) south of downtown Chicago is near low-income neighborhoods where Obama worked as a community organizer and is just blocks from the University of Chicago where Obama was a law professor. It is also close to the home where the Obamas lived until he won the presidency in 2008.

The center was originally slated to open in 2021, though ground hasn't yet broken because of the lingering litigation.

In its 2018 suit , Protect Our Parks accused the city of illegally transferring park land to a private entity, The Obama Foundation, effectively "gifting" prized land to a Chicago favorite son. The group said city officials manipulated the approval process and tinkered with legislation to skirt long-standing laws designed to ensure residents have unobstructed access to lakeside parks.

"Defendants have chosen to deal with it in a classic Chicago political way ... to deceive and seemingly legitimize an illegal land grab," the lawsuit says.

To make the park available for the project, the Chicago Park District first sold the land to the city for $1. Illinois legislators amended the state's Illinois Aquarium and Museum Act to include presidential libraries as an exception to the no-development rules if there's a compelling public interest. The Chicago City Council approved the project by a 47-to-1 vote last May.

The Obama Foundation, a private nonprofit, would pay $10 to the city for use of the park land for 99 years, cover the costs of building the complex and be responsible for covering operating costs for 99 years. Once built, the Obama Presidential Center's physical structures would be transferred to the city for free, meaning the city would formally own the center but not control what happens there.

"They are essentially giving (property) to Obama ... for 10 cents a year for 99 years," parks advocacy lawyer Mark Roth said Thursday.

In a friend-of-the-court brief , legal scholar Richard Epstein said public-trust doctrine places an extra burden on authorities to prove overwhelming public benefit when they offer the use of public parks to such well-connected figures as Obama, who remains hugely popular in the heavily Democratic city. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel once served as Obama's White House chief of staff.

One claim Blakey tossed Tuesday was that taxpayers' First Amendment rights would be infringed upon because tax money would be spent to reconfigure roads and traffic. The suit argued that taxpayers would thus subsidize any partisan political activity by Obama at the center.

City lawyers conceded Thursday that Chicago would pay an estimated $175 million to reconfigure roads to manage traffic around the center.

The lawsuit also claims that the center would interfere with migrating butterflies and birds.

City lawyers said Protect Our Parks misread the law, misrepresented how the approval process played out and exaggerated potential environmental disruptions.

The center would comprise 20 acres (8 hectares) of the 500-acre (202-hectare) park. Its centerpiece would be a 225-foot (69-meter) museum tower, surrounded by a cluster of smaller buildings, including a 300-seat auditorium.

City lawyers said it would bring a major economic boost to poor local minority communities. Backers estimate it would create 5,000 jobs during construction and over 2,500 permanent jobs. An estimated 760,000 people could visit each year.

[Jess from VA]

An estimated 760,000 people could visit each year.

Well, I suppose a billion could visit.


 

[old2soon]

Meanwhile, on the library front;

CHICAGO (AP) A judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a lawsuit filed by a parks-advocacy group that aims to stop for good the delayed construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential center in a Chicago park beside Lake Michigan.

Some supporters of the project fear the lawsuit filed by Protect Our Parks could force Obama who launched his political career in Chicago to build the Obama Presidential Center elsewhere.

A 2016 lawsuit brought by another group helped to scuttle a $400 million plan by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas to build a museum on public land on Chicago's lakefront. That museum is under construction in Los Angeles .

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey heard arguments last week on the city's motion to dismiss the suit and was largely focused on whether the group had standing to sue.

Judge Blakey did toss parts of the suit in his Tuesday ruling, but concluded that the group has standing because they represent taxpayers with concerns that providing parkland in the public trust to the Obama center violates their due-process rights.

Blakey's ruling doesn't mean the group will necessarily prevail, but confirms that the suit poses a formidable threat to the project. The judge indicated that he doesn't want the litigation to drag out, and that he would strictly limit any fact gathering leading up to trial to 45 days.

Plans call for the center to be built in Jackson Park, which was named after President Andrew Jackson and was a site for the Chicago World's Fair in 1893. The site 7 miles (11 kilometers) south of downtown Chicago is near low-income neighborhoods where Obama worked as a community organizer and is just blocks from the University of Chicago where Obama was a law professor. It is also close to the home where the Obamas lived until he won the presidency in 2008.

The center was originally slated to open in 2021, though ground hasn't yet broken because of the lingering litigation.

In its 2018 suit , Protect Our Parks accused the city of illegally transferring park land to a private entity, The Obama Foundation, effectively "gifting" prized land to a Chicago favorite son. The group said city officials manipulated the approval process and tinkered with legislation to skirt long-standing laws designed to ensure residents have unobstructed access to lakeside parks.

"Defendants have chosen to deal with it in a classic Chicago political way ... to deceive and seemingly legitimize an illegal land grab," the lawsuit says.

To make the park available for the project, the Chicago Park District first sold the land to the city for $1. Illinois legislators amended the state's Illinois Aquarium and Museum Act to include presidential libraries as an exception to the no-development rules if there's a compelling public interest. The Chicago City Council approved the project by a 47-to-1 vote last May.

The Obama Foundation, a private nonprofit, would pay $10 to the city for use of the park land for 99 years, cover the costs of building the complex and be responsible for covering operating costs for 99 years. Once built, the Obama Presidential Center's physical structures would be transferred to the city for free, meaning the city would formally own the center but not control what happens there.

"They are essentially giving (property) to Obama ... for 10 cents a year for 99 years," parks advocacy lawyer Mark Roth said Thursday.

In a friend-of-the-court brief , legal scholar Richard Epstein said public-trust doctrine places an extra burden on authorities to prove overwhelming public benefit when they offer the use of public parks to such well-connected figures as Obama, who remains hugely popular in the heavily Democratic city. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel once served as Obama's White House chief of staff.

One claim Blakey tossed Tuesday was that taxpayers' First Amendment rights would be infringed upon because tax money would be spent to reconfigure roads and traffic. The suit argued that taxpayers would thus subsidize any partisan political activity by Obama at the center.

City lawyers conceded Thursday that Chicago would pay an estimated $175 million to reconfigure roads to manage traffic around the center.

The lawsuit also claims that the center would interfere with migrating butterflies and birds.

City lawyers said Protect Our Parks misread the law, misrepresented how the approval process played out and exaggerated potential environmental disruptions.

The center would comprise 20 acres (8 hectares) of the 500-acre (202-hectare) park. Its centerpiece would be a 225-foot (69-meter) museum tower, surrounded by a cluster of smaller buildings, including a 300-seat auditorium.

City lawyers said it would bring a major economic boost to poor local minority communities. Backers estimate it would create 5,000 jobs during construction and over 2,500 permanent jobs. An estimated 760,000 people could visit each year.

    Or he might could sign an exec order!  He were good a THAT!  RIDE SAFE.