Discussion in 'Current Events' started by StillBlue, Feb 18, 2020.
You realize that the president of the association is a Bush appointed judge, don't you?
maybe they need to raise more money for their trip to Costa Rica
Same freedom. He didn’t attack her and she had no authority over him.
So...it’s a civic club.
They all like to keep politics out as much as possible...even rhe appearance. After Obama a’s infamous attack in the SCOTUS at the State of the Union they have been very proactive. Watching the left use this unfortunate event of jury misconduct as a political tool has them on edge.
Hahaha. Doubt it. I think they are going to warn the President to get off their turf.
It's an association of sitting federal judges. Civics is one function.
I thought it was pretty stupid thing to do, her and Bill. She should have been removed from the investigation if not her post. But I do agree to a point, the only difference being that Bill wasn't the POTUS in power during their meeting.
But yeah, debate can go forever. At this point I don't see much happening anymore. Barrs only check is Trump and Trump's only check was the Senate and we all saw where that went.
The only real shot against Trump is now the election. And the Dems seem hellbent on shooting themselves in the foot as much as possible.
Intent is immaterial. It's like those folks on YouTube who give someone a light push and lose it when they get arrested because, yes, it may have not mattered or had any affect, its still against the law and your going to lockup.
No, it's min-max and that's all added up at the same time. I did the math in another thread.
That does not make the activities of POTUS within the DOJ immune from investigation. He is not beyond accountability in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by the Constitution. He cannot do what he pleases. If you have an opposing view, you are conceding that corruption can flourish.
It's absolutely material as when the person I pushed says we were just horsing around.
No, they are not.
Trump’s DOJ has filed documents in court saying they are official statements. Is trump’s own DOJ wrong about this?
The incessant attack on Trump is precisely because he won the election. Talk of impeachment started the day after the election and hasn't abated one iota.
When one cites the intelligence agencies conclusion the cite should be precise and not an implication. The agencies confirmed only that Russia interfered in the election. They only speculated, but did not confirm or conclude, that they interfered to help Trump. Remember it was Obama who kept secret the knowledge of Russian hacking and in fact told his National Security Council to stop their counter intelligence activities because he thought that public knowledge of any Russian interference would hurt Hillary's certain victory. It was after Trump's win that Obama opened up about Russian interference.
Since when did the DOJ determine which are official statements from POTUS??????
Well I'm sure not to the level of trust you have in MSNBC and CNN.
Nope. If the cops see you do it, they can arrest you and charge you for it anyway.
About the same.
No kidding, where was the emergency meeting when Obama attacked a SCOTUS decision during a SOTU speech?
Lynch did something that looked bad but there was NO evidence she took any action to interfere.
Page had already left the campaign, in fact the campaign denied he ever worked for them.
Then perhaps the WH should clarify Spicer's remarks.
As I said in another post the DOJ does not determine or decide which words of the president are official orders or not.
It was the conclusion of the three major agencies that the Russian interference was to help Trump. Read the report. The FBI and CIA with strong confidence and the NSA with moderate confidence. And, yes, Obama did not announce the agencies' findings until after the election, although I know of no Obama order to suspend investigation activities. You may be thinking of McConnell's refusal to issue a joint bi-partisan statement regarding the Russian interference if Obama made a public announcement before the election and attacking the announcement as partisan politics. That dog no longer hunts.
Certainly, the Obamanation was threating ALL our rights as citizens to speak, Trump is not threating our rights by tweeting.
The AG is not the president's personal fixer as Billy the Bagman has become. Presidents are not supposed to instruct the AG as to who to prosecute and who not to prosecute as Billy the Bagman is doing. The AG may be chosen by the president and may be fired by the president, but the AG is not supposed to do the president's bidding. The AG is supposed to see that the rule of law is applied to criminals. Period.
So, show me the part of the constitution claiming that the AG is supposed to be supervised by the president.
Exactly, the treasonous Obamanation threatened all our rights to Freedom of Speech, Trump does not threaten our rights to speak or tweet...
Separate names with a comma.