Trump Violates Federal Law

And here we see the clearest question this entire issue can provide.

 

I thought Trump says what he means? Isn't that what all you guys praised him for during the campaign?

 

Did he threaten the NFL with something if they don't fire players refusing to stand? If not, then you haven't even cross the threshold.

 

Trump never called nazis very fine people. 'Fake news' he refered to 'others' protesting the dismantling of history who are very fine people meaningnot the nazis white nationalists and not antifa.

 

Or made you suffer TDS.

 

Don't you have some misogynistic bullshit to dredge up and make a thread about? I think you are overdue on your women insulting quota.

 

We didnt mean that literally. Either libs are being disingenious in intrepeting language to mean whatever they want or they are slightly autistic. I am actually considering the second but I have to do some studies and tests before I can state it as true.

 

Bogus, dishonest OP. The first paragraph starts off in error, Statutes almost never "stipulate" anything (unless they are trying to reconcile two other statutes or sets of language, etc.) they specify, proscribe, enable, authorize, extend, etc. So right off the bat we know we are reading hokum. What OP did was append his own erroneous paragraph (or whatever LW blog he got this from) above the actual statutory language. Full stop, dishonest, ignore post and any like it right then and there.

Protip. Citing to the text of a statute is not enough. You must cite to agency rulemaking, controlling interpretive documents, case law and/or sometimes legislative history that brings whatever act in question within the ambit of the statute -unless- the action in question is identical to a proscribed action in the statute, for example "unauthorized removal and storage of classified documents" or "exceeding 65 MPH."

That is the plain, basic burden of anyone claiming a statutory violation, ESPECIALLY one as ABSURDLY STRAINED and STRETCHED as this ridiculous nugget of a claim that I have no doubt will be the subject of numerous duplicate threads from the LW.

Trying to stretch what is obviously a bribery statute to public statements Trump made is loony even for a LW that distorted and contorted language to the nth degree to try to rationalize and squirm out of Hillary Clinton's flagrant statutory violations... of statutes specifically drafted to prohibit the very acts she committed.

So burden is on you. Burden remains unmet. Get busy.

 

One would hope you understand that "Libs" are not the only ones finding great fault in Donald Trump. We have a President who seems to make up his own truths, creates dissent within our domestic society and has alienated virtually every traditional democratic ally while embracing every traditional adversary, Does not seem to understand the basics of our Constitution and quite bluntly is simply not very bright. I do understand that this new "Trump" Republicrat does not like the old Conservative mindset, but we are NOT liberals.

 

Uh huh...whatever floats your boat mate. He clearly used his position to influence the outcome. He is president Trump, not citizen Trump. And I say this again - He swore an oath to defend the Constitution, of which the freedom of speech and expression is a part. That he showed disdained for the players, and have a hissy fit that the owners won't do anything about this, advocated for them to be fired, show his lack of understanding of his job. At the minimum, he should be censure for all his stupid tweets.

 

There is nothing in their contract that say they must stand during the Anthem. Nothing.

 

That didn't stop the rabid RWers from declaring all these players leftists. Intellectually dishonesty post.

 

No one takes Trump seriously. Not even that clown Kim Jung Idiot. What is our next move nevermind the idiocy of Trump commenting on this.

 

No but it is the left libs that try to discredit him by misrepresenting what he said instead of arguing against what he actually said.

 

Now you're just being obtuse. I refuse to believe you are this dense.

 

You haven't heard? only leftists dare to disrespect the flag.

 

I am not on the left yet I interpreted what he said as nonsensical angry diatribe bordering on unconstitutional. It was also petty and childish. These are not attributes I seek in a POTUS.

 

Thats completely false.
Respecting America isnt a partisan position, unless your suggesting democrats hate America.... Which is very possible

Lois Learner is guilty of what you claim, but not Trump

 

It simply doesn't apply. "Solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation." Trump gave his opinion that the kneelers should be fired, but it was not based upon "partisan political affiliation." To fully understand a law, one must always find out what the intent of the law is - what problem it is intended to address. My hunch is that this law is intended to keep members of congress and the president from pressuring companies to hire their cronies - their donors, friends, and staffers. That's what this is aimed at addressing, in my opinion.

 

So, now we know that kushner & Ivanka are using private E-mail----Where are the Congressional hearings----LOCK THEM UP-LOCK THEM UP---

 

So because the OP is completely dumb, you want to change the topic?

Kushner and Ivanka did not delete their email accounts to try to cover anything up nor have lied about it. Unless there are national security secrets on the emails this is exactly nothing.

 

Wrong. The NFL Operations Manual is very clear and has been quoted dozens of times. It specifically calls for fines and suspensions for refusing to be on the field and standing for the national anthem.

 

Trump saying that owners should fire players is influence, not opinion.

 

Uh, ...no, sorry

He has no authority or ability to influence this

 

No thanks, I don't want to mate with you.