July 28, 2019
What must Obama be thinking as Dems support Mueller’s contention that an ex-president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office?
By Thomas Lifson
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a genuine and widespread mental ailment. It qualifies as an infirmity because it blinds those afflicted with it to the consequences of their behavior, leading them to harm themselves. Were the psychology and psychiatry professions not fully in the hands of the Left, TDS would be appearing the next edition of the DSM -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The dead-enders among the Trump-haters now fervently believe that once President Trump is defeated in 2020, he should be indicted for what they irrationally believe is the crime of obstructing justice, even though Robert Mueller testified that his investigation was not hindered in any way. They focus instead on Mueller's avowal that while a sitting president cannot be indicted, an ex-president can be. They urge Trump’s defeat because a second term in office would bring the statute of limitations into play, immunizing him from the consequences of his imaginary crime.
Thus, Democrats keep reminding us that it is important to hold ex-presidents criminally liable for their criminal conduct in office.
Have you noticed how ex-President Obama is nearly invisible lately?
I have to wonder if he worries about US Attorney Durham’s grand jury investigating the role of John Brennan in enlisting foreign intelligence agencies in the plot to spy on the Trump campaign, and after the election, to bring it down?
Joe DiGenova, the former US Attorney for DC, has been consistently correct in his predictions of how the scandal will unfold. Last week, appearing on DC conservative talk station WMAL, he commented that he understands that Durham’s grand jury is very active, and will be especially so during the congressional recess. He also believes that John Brennan was the spearhead of the plotters.
You can listen to his entire interview here.
This is speculation, but if Brennan is indicted and faces a possible prison sentence, I wonder what kind of deal he might be offered to implicate his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama? I don’t for a second believe that Brennan and the other senior members of the cabal were operating without the approval and supervision of people in the White House.
If not Brennan, then others involved in the plot might wish to reduce their possible punishment by enabling prosecutors to climb the food chain -- which is what prosecutors routinely do.
So, just what do you suppose Obama is thinking to himself as his most fanatic partisans keep making the case that justice requires an ex-president be held criminally liable for their misconduct in office?
Conservatives like me tend to think that prosecuting an ex-head of state is a bad idea. It further criminalizes politics, after all. But our TDS-afflicted political enemies keep making the opposite case.
What must Obama be thinking as Dems support Mueller’s contention that an ex-president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office?
By Thomas Lifson
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a genuine and widespread mental ailment. It qualifies as an infirmity because it blinds those afflicted with it to the consequences of their behavior, leading them to harm themselves. Were the psychology and psychiatry professions not fully in the hands of the Left, TDS would be appearing the next edition of the DSM -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The dead-enders among the Trump-haters now fervently believe that once President Trump is defeated in 2020, he should be indicted for what they irrationally believe is the crime of obstructing justice, even though Robert Mueller testified that his investigation was not hindered in any way. They focus instead on Mueller's avowal that while a sitting president cannot be indicted, an ex-president can be. They urge Trump’s defeat because a second term in office would bring the statute of limitations into play, immunizing him from the consequences of his imaginary crime.
Thus, Democrats keep reminding us that it is important to hold ex-presidents criminally liable for their criminal conduct in office.
Have you noticed how ex-President Obama is nearly invisible lately?
I have to wonder if he worries about US Attorney Durham’s grand jury investigating the role of John Brennan in enlisting foreign intelligence agencies in the plot to spy on the Trump campaign, and after the election, to bring it down?
Joe DiGenova, the former US Attorney for DC, has been consistently correct in his predictions of how the scandal will unfold. Last week, appearing on DC conservative talk station WMAL, he commented that he understands that Durham’s grand jury is very active, and will be especially so during the congressional recess. He also believes that John Brennan was the spearhead of the plotters.
You can listen to his entire interview here.
This is speculation, but if Brennan is indicted and faces a possible prison sentence, I wonder what kind of deal he might be offered to implicate his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama? I don’t for a second believe that Brennan and the other senior members of the cabal were operating without the approval and supervision of people in the White House.
If not Brennan, then others involved in the plot might wish to reduce their possible punishment by enabling prosecutors to climb the food chain -- which is what prosecutors routinely do.
So, just what do you suppose Obama is thinking to himself as his most fanatic partisans keep making the case that justice requires an ex-president be held criminally liable for their misconduct in office?
Conservatives like me tend to think that prosecuting an ex-head of state is a bad idea. It further criminalizes politics, after all. But our TDS-afflicted political enemies keep making the opposite case.
