Trump supporters?

[jessemoore97]

I would love to have witnesses testify at the trial. Put it all out there. Therefore the Biden's, Schiff, and the "leaker" among others will be subpoenaed. Fair trial means both sides get to call witnesses, and see where the D side of the aisle lines up on that.

FWIW those "subpoenas" the House issued in the investigation prior to the actual vote of impeachment had zero legal authority and backing. In order for the subpoenas to have teeth to them the actual impeachment vote needed to have happened and all the subsequent powers would have followed. Without that I'd tell whoever to fly a kite also. Plus like it or not there still would have been the executive privilege challenge that would have had to go through the court. Every President is entitled to it and have exercised this clause.

The Dems rushed this shitshow and the entire process because they realize they have a huge problem with the 2020 election. The show is just beginning folks!

[jbrown_9999]

Originally Posted by Soko

There is an opportunity now to hear from direct witnesses. Lets hear them. Those witnesses all refused to testify under House investigations btw. They were called and refused to go. Trump is flat out lying saying Bolton was not called.

If you think blackmailing allied foreign governments under siege from a hostile enemy to hold a sham press conference into your political rival is above board then I don't know what level we are at. Chris Wallace nailed Dershowitz's flip flop on the matter regarding what rises to an impeachable offense. He claims he's done some more reading since the last trial!! Give me a break. Lindsey Graham saying directly that it is not a requirement to commit a crime to be impeached but now the roles are reversed. It's borderline comical.

I am not defending Trump but more poking at the Dems for this point. It is unfortunate how people will object to behavior by the opposing party that they will gladly condone if done by members of their own party.

Does anyone doubt that if Clinton was a Republican and Trump a Democrat that many people in both parties would have a completely different stance on the desired outcome for their respective impeachments?

Regardless of whether or not Trump actually committed an impeachable offense,

1) Was it the House's job to fully investigate any Impeachment charges?

2) Did not the House Dems already say that they had an overwhelmingly convincing case against Trump?

3) Did not the House Dems decide to end their investigation and present the case to the Senate?

Given the current "demand" for the Senate to call additional witnesses, is it not an admission that the House did not either fully investigate the charges and/or an admission that they prematurely sent the case to the Senate?

Is their case against Trump not as strong as the Dems originally claimed?

Or is the Dem's demand for the Republican-controlled Senate to call witnesses that the House Dems either did not call or did not wait to hear from just manufactured political posturing to score points in an election year?

I guess my point is that it appears that a lot of the rationale behind the impeachment of Trump is not out of a sense of what is right but is simply a case of Dems wanting to change the result of the 2016 election or influence the 2020 election and acting in an extremely partisan manner to do so. Just like the Republicans tried to do to Bill Clinton.

If you want Trump removed from office through impeachment but did not want Bill Clinton also removed from office, are your motives pure or just partisan?

[Kelly Gruene]

Bringing in witnesses is just going to destroy everything on both sides. Just confuse the issue more.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will there be a quid pro quo: You give us Bolton, we'll give you Hunter Biden?
Bolton puts on a show, Biden pleads the fifth.
Now both sides want more witnesses.
It has been messy already, and witnesses will only make it more convoluted.
If Trump does go down, I think I'll take a prolonged vacation offshore to miss the ensuing societal meltdown.

[Jim2Dokes]

Originally Posted by Kelly Gruene

Bringing in witnesses is just going to destroy everything on both sides. Just confuse the issue more.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will there be a quid pro quo: You give us Bolton, we'll give you Hunter Biden?
Bolton puts on a show, Biden pleads the fifth.
Now both sides want more witnesses.
It has been messy already, and witnesses will only make it more convoluted.
If Trump does go down, I think I'll take a prolonged vacation offshore to miss the ensuing societal meltdown.

Well even if Biden shows up it doesn’t matter because he is not the president. It will get messy for sure. I would argue we just can not allow a president one side or the other to have candidates investigated for a return on investment. It gets into way deeper things like you can destroy this or that within our country, but I need this... This Ukraine deal is not really that big, but if you allow this then what is the precedent? It can not go unpunished. I agree though, offshore vacation is needed, the white nationalist will go ballistic.

[jessemoore97]

Originally Posted by Kelly Gruene

Bringing in witnesses is just going to destroy everything on both sides. Just confuse the issue more.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will there be a quid pro quo: You give us Bolton, we'll give you Hunter Biden?
Bolton puts on a show, Biden pleads the fifth.
Now both sides want more witnesses.
It has been messy already, and witnesses will only make it more convoluted.
If Trump does go down, I think I'll take a prolonged vacation offshore to miss the ensuing societal meltdown.

I agree it will get messy, but exposure to the truth is the goal. Peel back the layers of corruption and expose it to the light. Its time.

[Soko]

Originally Posted by jessemoore97

FWIW those "subpoenas" the House issued in the investigation prior to the actual vote of impeachment had zero legal authority and backing. In order for the subpoenas to have teeth to them the actual impeachment vote needed to have happened and all the subsequent powers would have followed. Without that I'd tell whoever to fly a kite also. Plus like it or not there still would have been the executive privilege challenge that would have had to go through the court. Every President is entitled to it and have exercised this clause.

The Dems rushed this shitshow and the entire process because they realize they have a huge problem with the 2020 election. The show is just beginning folks!

The House did not issue subpoenas as they knew it would be an extended legal battle and they were told directly, in letters, that the desired witnesses would not show up.

So they wrapped it up and sent it to the senate to try and push witnesses through the trial. The irony of saying it was rushed while all the senators now say they want this wrapped up without hearing the actual facts from direct sources is mind blowing.

Lets call it what it is. A cover up. Head in the sand politics.

[jessemoore97]

Originally Posted by Soko

The House did not issue subpoenas as they knew it would be an extended legal battle and they were told directly, in letters, that the desired witnesses would not show up.

So they wrapped it up and sent it to the senate to try and push witnesses through the trial. The irony of saying it was rushed while all the senators now say they want this wrapped up without hearing the actual facts from direct sources is mind blowing.

Lets call it what it is. A cover up. Head in the sand politics.

Like I already mentioned I want witnesses, and Trump has mentioned this too. The one constant in this whole thing is the Dems shooting themselves in the foot and looking like total boobs at every turn since Trump took office. Every accusation lobbed at him with foolproof evidence has gone poof. Statements have been made since he was elected that we will impeach Trump from the Dems, that all we've heard for 3+ years.

The impeach narrative for Ukraine blew up in their faces the moment Trump released the transcript of the call, they didn't expect Trump to do this. It took the wind out of what they were crafting against him with the alleged whistleblower and exposed their plan they already had set. It's been abundantly clear as soon as Schiff read his falsified version of the transcript, then every witness called in the House with "vital and damning" testimony supporting the impeachment blew up in their faces. No direct 1st hand knowledge of the call, whistleblower won't be allowed to testify about the call, many witnesses forced to acknowledge under oath they were speculating or that nothing that was done by POTUS was illegal or corrupt, and having to admit the Biden's and Ukraine corruption or their "ignorance" to it.

I won't even get into the issues of the FISA courts, DOJ, Crowdstrike, Fusion GPS, and many others with regard to Russiagate.

Trump barely has to do anything. Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

[Jim2Dokes]

Originally Posted by jessemoore97

Like I already mentioned I want witnesses, and Trump has mentioned this too. The one constant in this whole thing is the Dems shooting themselves in the foot and looking like total boobs at every turn since Trump took office. Every accusation lobbed at him with foolproof evidence has gone poof. Statements have been made since he was elected that we will impeach Trump from the Dems, that all we've heard for 3+ years.

The impeach narrative for Ukraine blew up in their faces the moment Trump released the transcript of the call, they didn't expect Trump to do this. It took the wind out of what they were crafting against him with the alleged whistleblower and exposed their plan they already had set. It's been abundantly clear as soon as Schiff read his falsified version of the transcript, then every witness called in the House with "vital and damning" testimony supporting the impeachment blew up in their faces. No direct 1st hand knowledge of the call, whistleblower won't be allowed to testify about the call, many witnesses forced to acknowledge under oath they were speculating or that nothing that was done by POTUS was illegal or corrupt, and having to admit the Biden's and Ukraine corruption or their "ignorance" to it.

I won't even get into the issues of the FISA courts, DOJ, Crowdstrike, Fusion GPS, and many others with regard to Russiagate.

Trump barely has to do anything. Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

Dude..
Let's take stock of the number of presidential aides and associates who've faced felony charges:

* Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, has been convinced on multiple counts.

* Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and business associate, is in prison.

* Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, is in prison.

* Rick Gates, Trump's former campaign vice chairman, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

* Michael Flynn, Trump's former White House national security advisor, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

* George Papadopoulos, Trump's former campaign advisor on foreign policy, has alread served his prison sentence.

* Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer who worked with Manafort and Gates. has already served his prison sentence.

And those are just the top-line indictments. It doesn’t include the prison sentence for Richard Pinedo, the charges against related characters such as Sam Patten and Maria Butina, and, of course, the many Russian individuals and entities who’ve been indicted by the special counsel
Taken from MSNBC.

It’s funny that you think russiagate or whatever is a big goose hunt, but Uranium one and other GOP conspiracies are legit against the left. When people were actually put in jail.

[jessemoore97]

Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes

Dude..
Let's take stock of the number of presidential aides and associates who've faced felony charges:

* Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, has been convinced on multiple counts.

* Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and business associate, is in prison.

* Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, is in prison.

* Rick Gates, Trump's former campaign vice chairman, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

* Michael Flynn, Trump's former White House national security advisor, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

* George Papadopoulos, Trump's former campaign advisor on foreign policy, has alread served his prison sentence.

* Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer who worked with Manafort and Gates. has already served his prison sentence.

And those are just the top-line indictments. It doesn’t include the prison sentence for Richard Pinedo, the charges against related characters such as Sam Patten and Maria Butina, and, of course, the many Russian individuals and entities who’ve been indicted by the special counsel
Taken from MSNBC.

It’s funny that you think russiagate or whatever is a big goose hunt, but Uranium one and other GOP conspiracies are legit against the left. When people were actually put in jail.

Funny you mention Flynn, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, remember FISA abuse. There is a reason Flynn was targeted, as well as others in the efforts to get Trump. These are indisputable facts that are coming to light that the MSM are not reporting on, or actively helping to cover up. Real journalism and digging into these scandals is taking place by a lot of people. The blocks for the cover ups are being exposed and have been getting removed.

Call me whatever at the end of the day, I don't really care. When declasses and information keeps coming out about what happened and who is involved everyone will be enlightened. Enjoy the show.

[Jim2Dokes]

Originally Posted by jessemoore97

Funny you mention Flynn, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, remember FISA abuse. There is a reason Flynn was targeted, as well as others in the efforts to get Trump. These are indisputable facts that are coming to light that the MSM are not reporting on, or actively helping to cover up. Real journalism and digging into these scandals is taking place by a lot of people. The blocks for the cover ups are being exposed and have been getting removed.

Call me whatever at the end of the day, I don't really care. When declasses and information keeps coming out about what happened and who is involved everyone will be enlightened. Enjoy the show.

So I give facts about trumps circle commenting felonies and you throw out more conspiracy theories. This one sounds like the quon conspiracy which Jeff Sessions has bunch of names of the deep state that we’re going to indicted. He’s like most Trumps group left shortly after. I didn’t call you anything. I will say make a statement of “indisputable facts” and “when information comes out” do not match.

[jessemoore97]

Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes

So I give facts about trumps circle commenting felonies and you throw out more conspiracy theories. This one sounds like the quon conspiracy which Jeff Sessions has bunch of names of the deep state that we’re going to indicted. He’s like most Trumps group left shortly after. I didn’t call you anything. I will say make a statement of “indisputable facts” and “when information comes out” do not match.

Fact: You are not very knowledgeable about what has or not happened in the Flynn case. The FACT you claim its a conspiracy shows your complete ignorance to the facts in the case.

FACT: At least two of the FISA warrants in the Russiagate investigation, and most likely many more TBA, had no legal basis for being obtained. The FBI is reeling from this right now. Matter of factly an Obama appointee who has defended the FISA process and was put in charge of reviewing the FISA(under protest from conservatives mind you), was forced to admit serious errors in the FISA process by FBI and DOJ. These are indisputable facts that the MSM has not reported on at all. Currently the FBI and DOJ have requested to the FISA courts for more time to come up with answers for the egregious errors in the FISA's and how they slipped past so many levels of oversight including James Comey and others in charge. But the basis of all the spying/wire taping is a total conspiracy?

The ends do not justify the means, rule of law has to be followed and citizens have rights no matter how corrupt you believe they are or what you think they are doing. Each passing day more information is seeping out about how laws were violated and evidence was intentionally fabricated in the investigations.

Again keep watching and enjoy the show.

[irishwavend]

Originally Posted by Soko

There is an opportunity now to hear from direct witnesses. Lets hear them. Those witnesses all refused to testify under House investigations btw. They were called and refused to go. Trump is flat out lying saying Bolton was not called.

If you think blackmailing allied foreign governments under siege from a hostile enemy to hold a sham press conference into your political rival is above board then I don't know what level we are at. Chris Wallace nailed Dershowitz's flip flop on the matter regarding what rises to an impeachable offense. He claims he's done some more reading since the last trial!! Give me a break. Lindsey Graham saying directly that it is not a requirement to commit a crime to be impeached but now the roles are reversed. It's borderline comical.

Get a law degree and we’ll talk. Otherwise, you can keep embarrassing yourself by parroting the ignorant (at best) or malfeasant (at worst) media. Here’s an example of the types of people you’re following for your opinions...talk show hosts who have zero legal background telling not only an attorney but a legal scholar and expert that unless he says what they want to hear, they aren’t interested in hearing the truth, the law, or the historical justification for this expert’s opinion. No, they just want their almighty uninformed opinion that is laden with bias... The same bias they stand on a pedestal and tell folks they should never have. The left is out of its mind, especially the political media...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...r-goldberg.amp

What’s also horrible is that the one attorney on the show provided no competent discussion either...

Don’t sit on your high horse and pretend Dems know or care about national security, especially when it has to do with Ukraine...whom they gave ZERO money when Russia was up its a$$ and annexing Crimea. Instead, Obama gave them some food and sat back like a b!tch and watched. The Trump admin? Gave them stingers and billions.

Further, there is no testimony that matters because even if everything was true, it doesn’t rise to the level of removing a President. If it does, we’ll never have a stable Presidency again unless both houses are his party. So if the testimony is irrelevant then all it could do is be used for political gain.

And, if we’re discussing Dem accusations of foreign meddling in elections, what do you call soliciting information about opposing campaigns from British spies? Or, using foreign professors to spy on those campaigns? What a f***ing joke the left is. They hope you forget about all of their dirty sh** while they label others for the acts Dems actually committed. These hypocrites literally need to be swallowed by the earth. They’re evil people and they’re traitors. They have zero interest in supporting the ideals of this country.

And as far as Bolton, he just got demolished tonight in the words of the Dems, including Obama and Schiff, and Bolton himself who stated in a 2010 interview that he’d tell an overt lie to protect the nation. Zero credibility as a witness... Let’s talk to Biden though. I would love to hear from him.

Finally, Jesse has yall pinned down above. He’s dead on. Flynn’s conviction was fruit of the poisonous tree...his problem, however, was the same as Clinton’s in 1998, though...lying under oath.

[jessemoore97]

Originally Posted by irishwavend

Get a law degree and we’ll talk. Otherwise, you can keep embarrassing yourself by parroting the ignorant (at best) or malfeasant (at worst) media. Here’s an example of the types of people you’re following for your opinions...talk show hosts who have zero legal background telling not only an attorney but a legal scholar and expert that unless he says what they want to hear, they aren’t interested in hearing the truth, the law, or the historical justification for this expert’s opinion. No, they just want their almighty uninformed opinion that is laden with bias... The same bias they stand on a pedestal and tell folks they should never have. The left is out of its mind, especially the political media...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...r-goldberg.amp

What’s also horrible is that the one attorney on the show provided no competent discussion either...

Don’t sit on your high horse and pretend Dems know or care about national security, especially when it has to do with Ukraine...whom they gave ZERO money when Russia was up its a$$ and annexing Crimea. Instead, Obama gave them some food and sat back like a b!tch and watched. The Trump admin? Gave them stingers and billions.

Further, there is no testimony that matters because even if everything was true, it doesn’t rise to the level of removing a President. If it does, we’ll never have a stable Presidency again unless both houses are his party. So if the testimony is irrelevant then all it could do is be used for political gain.

And, if we’re discussing Dem accusations of foreign meddling in elections, what do you call soliciting information about opposing campaigns from British spies? Or, using foreign professors to spy on those campaigns? What a f***ing joke the left is. They hope you forget about all of their dirty sh** while they label others for the acts Dems actually committed. These hypocrites literally need to be swallowed by the earth. They’re evil people and they’re traitors. They have zero interest in supporting the ideals of this country.

And as far as Bolton, he just got demolished tonight in the words of the Dems, including Obama and Schiff, and Bolton himself who stated in a 2010 interview that he’d tell an overt lie to protect the nation. Zero credibility as a witness... Let’s talk to Biden though. I would love to hear from him.

Finally, Jesse has yall pinned down above. He’s dead on. Flynn’s conviction was fruit of the poisonous tree...his problem, however, was the same as Clinton’s in 1998, though...lying under oath.

What part of lying under oath are you referring to Wave? Was it about the forms filled out one? If so, from my understanding it is extremely weak to nonexistent he or anyone be charged given the circumstance. If memory serves the argument was he lied on the form, which he claimed he didn't. I don't remember its entirety off hand, but it was some really underhanded **** the prosecutors were creating to entrap him.

[irishwavend]

Originally Posted by jessemoore97

What part of lying under oath are you referring to Wave? Was it about the forms filled out one? If so, from my understanding it is extremely weak to nonexistent he or anyone be charged given the circumstance. If memory serves the argument was he lied on the form, which he claimed he didn't. I don't remember its entirety off hand, but it was some really underhanded **** the prosecutors were creating to entrap him.

I think he lied to the FBI about speaking to the Russian Ambassador in a January 2017 interview he gave to the FBI. That’s basically what they nailed him on. You can’t lie... That said...he probably has a way out since everything was based on bullsh**.

[irishwavend]

Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes

Well even if Biden shows up it doesn’t matter because he is not the president. It will get messy for sure. I would argue we just can not allow a president one side or the other to have candidates investigated for a return on investment. It gets into way deeper things like you can destroy this or that within our country, but I need this... This Ukraine deal is not really that big, but if you allow this then what is the precedent? It can not go unpunished. I agree though, offshore vacation is needed, the white nationalist will go ballistic.

Baloney. If you’re corrupt and potentially violating the law, you deserve to be investigated regardless. You know how you avoid that??? DONT BE CORRUPT!!! It’s that simple...if there was nothing there, it would be one thing, but there’s plenty. I don’t understand this world where we carve out a space for certain people who are too big to fail. We all put our pants on one leg at a time... Be a good, honest, law abiding person and you have nothing to worry about...and if someone does come after you, let the facts speak. Biden is far from clean and deserves the scrutiny.

[Soko]

Originally Posted by irishwavend

I think he lied to the FBI about speaking to the Russian Ambassador in a January 2017 interview he gave to the FBI. That’s basically what they nailed him on. You can’t lie... That said...he probably has a way out since everything was based on bullsh**.

That's what he was done for. If he admitted they spoke then he'd have no issues that I am aware of.

However his work for the Turkish government is shady as fcuk. I couldn't care less about that white lie. Secret lobbying for that sociopath Erdogan is a much worse look.

[Soko]

Originally Posted by irishwavend

Get a law degree and we’ll talk. Otherwise, you can keep embarrassing yourself by parroting the ignorant (at best) or malfeasant (at worst) media. Here’s an example of the types of people you’re following for your opinions...talk show hosts who have zero legal background telling not only an attorney but a legal scholar and expert that unless he says what they want to hear, they aren’t interested in hearing the truth, the law, or the historical justification for this expert’s opinion. No, they just want their almighty uninformed opinion that is laden with bias... The same bias they stand on a pedestal and tell folks they should never have. The left is out of its mind, especially the political media...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...r-goldberg.amp

What’s also horrible is that the one attorney on the show provided no competent discussion either...

Don’t sit on your high horse and pretend Dems know or care about national security, especially when it has to do with Ukraine...whom they gave ZERO money when Russia was up its a$$ and annexing Crimea. Instead, Obama gave them some food and sat back like a b!tch and watched. The Trump admin? Gave them stingers and billions.

Further, there is no testimony that matters because even if everything was true, it doesn’t rise to the level of removing a President. If it does, we’ll never have a stable Presidency again unless both houses are his party. So if the testimony is irrelevant then all it could do is be used for political gain.

And, if we’re discussing Dem accusations of foreign meddling in elections, what do you call soliciting information about opposing campaigns from British spies? Or, using foreign professors to spy on those campaigns? What a f***ing joke the left is. They hope you forget about all of their dirty sh** while they label others for the acts Dems actually committed. These hypocrites literally need to be swallowed by the earth. They’re evil people and they’re traitors. They have zero interest in supporting the ideals of this country.

And as far as Bolton, he just got demolished tonight in the words of the Dems, including Obama and Schiff, and Bolton himself who stated in a 2010 interview that he’d tell an overt lie to protect the nation. Zero credibility as a witness... Let’s talk to Biden though. I would love to hear from him.

Finally, Jesse has yall pinned down above. He’s dead on. Flynn’s conviction was fruit of the poisonous tree...his problem, however, was the same as Clinton’s in 1998, though...lying under oath.

Fact: Bolton and others were called by the house but refused to come unless subpoenaed. The house punted that decision to the senate to avoid a legal wrangle.

Fact: Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz (plus Jerry Nadler) now hold diametrically opposed views on what constitutes an impeachable offense to what they held in 1999. Ken Starr is saying we now live in the age of impeachment - wtf!!

Opinion: Using aid to blackmail a foreign leader into an investigation to help your re-election falls into abuse of power for me and he should be censored and voted out of office. Impeached, meh. But this guy should not be president.

[Tenacious_ND]

https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/...new-wotus-rule

What do the Trump supporters think of this? rolling back critical regulations.

[irishwavend]

Originally Posted by Tenacious_ND

https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/...new-wotus-rule

What do the Trump supporters think of this? rolling back critical regulations.

Dang! Tried to read it and said I had to have a subscription. I will say this...like any President, there are no absolutes. I mean, not real thrilled about pulling out of Syria, but you have to look at his policies as a whole and prioritize what you think is most important compared to the other guy, in the end.

Do you have another source for whatever that article is talking about?

[GunSlinger]

Originally Posted by irishwavend

Dang! Tried to read it and said I had to have a subscription. I will say this...like any President, there are no absolutes. I mean, not real thrilled about pulling out of Syria, but you have to look at his policies as a whole and prioritize what you think is most important compared to the other guy, in the end.

Do you have another source for whatever that article is talking about?

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...tection-rule-0

Not the same article but I think this is what he was trying to convey.

[Tenacious_ND]

Originally Posted by GunSlinger

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...tection-rule-0

Not the same article but I think this is what he was trying to convey.

yep thats it!

[irishwavend]

My only information is what I'm reading in that article and what I know about water rights from my legal experience. But, I view this as the biggest part of the article that the administration was seeking to correct:

"This final action also details what waters are not subject to federal control, including features that only contain water in direct response to rainfall; groundwater; many ditches, including most farm and roadside ditches; prior converted cropland; farm and stock watering ponds; and waste treatment systems."

I know in the past, the EPA has claimed that if water can even show up once in a while in a channel that streams across your property, even though the channel is usually barren, the EPA was claiming they could regulate your property, and (having taken environmental law) this is not the intent of the statute. I know this happened under Obama which became a real problem for some farmers.

Honestly, anything that helps farmers in this country, I'm for... Water rights are incredibly confusing. In one part of the country, the person upstream has the right to do whatever they want to water to divert it and use it, while in other parts of the country, you can't use water in a manner that will upset the use for your neighbor downstream. It's an East/West difference based on the East having plenty of water and the West not...

So, I don't know...I think clarification is always a good thing unless it oversteps the clear language of the statute, but I don't know enough about this exact issue aside from the article stated to opine any differently. Was there something else I was supposed to see or missed?

[Tenacious_ND]

Originally Posted by irishwavend

My only information is what I'm reading in that article and what I know about water rights from my legal experience. But, I view this as the biggest part of the article that the administration was seeking to correct:

"This final action also details what waters are not subject to federal control, including features that only contain water in direct response to rainfall; groundwater; many ditches, including most farm and roadside ditches; prior converted cropland; farm and stock watering ponds; and waste treatment systems."

I know in the past, the EPA has claimed that if water can even show up once in a while in a channel that streams across your property, even though the channel is usually barren, the EPA was claiming they could regulate your property, and (having taken environmental law) this is not the intent of the statute. I know this happened under Obama which became a real problem for some farmers.

Honestly, anything that helps farmers in this country, I'm for... Water rights are incredibly confusing. In one part of the country, the person upstream has the right to do whatever they want to water to divert it and use it, while in other parts of the country, you can't use water in a manner that will upset the use for your neighbor downstream. It's an East/West difference based on the East having plenty of water and the West not...

So, I don't know...I think clarification is always a good thing unless it oversteps the clear language of the statute, but I don't know enough about this exact issue aside from the article stated to opine any differently. Was there something else I was supposed to see or missed?

This removes protection for ephemeral streams. Its tough to spin this in a positive way. Farms are so bad with runoff pollution. I personally like clean water.

[jessemoore97]

Originally Posted by Tenacious_ND

https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/...new-wotus-rule

What do the Trump supporters think of this? rolling back critical regulations.

Read the second article. Guess I'm not familiar enough with the regulations on water rights and have little experience. I know my folks when they built a new house 30 years ago had to get the neighbors permission for a new well, since they owned the water rights.

I'm for clean water too. Not sure what impact I will feel around me or what's going to change. I believe the State deals more with this issue here or rather takes the lead as far as contaminations from leaks and what not. I know water rights are a contentious issue in the western US.

[Pregame]

Originally Posted by irishwavend

My only information is what I'm reading in that article and what I know about water rights from my legal experience. But, I view this as the biggest part of the article that the administration was seeking to correct:

"This final action also details what waters are not subject to federal control, including features that only contain water in direct response to rainfall; groundwater; many ditches, including most farm and roadside ditches; prior converted cropland; farm and stock watering ponds; and waste treatment systems."

I know in the past, the EPA has claimed that if water can even show up once in a while in a channel that streams across your property, even though the channel is usually barren, the EPA was claiming they could regulate your property, and (having taken environmental law) this is not the intent of the statute. I know this happened under Obama which became a real problem for some farmers.

Honestly, anything that helps farmers in this country, I'm for... Water rights are incredibly confusing. In one part of the country, the person upstream has the right to do whatever they want to water to divert it and use it, while in other parts of the country, you can't use water in a manner that will upset the use for your neighbor downstream. It's an East/West difference based on the East having plenty of water and the West not...

So, I don't know...I think clarification is always a good thing unless it oversteps the clear language of the statute, but I don't know enough about this exact issue aside from the article stated to opine any differently. Was there something else I was supposed to see or missed?

Are you a lawyer by any chance? Did you attend law school? It's hard to tell.