Elizabeth Warren

[cleaver]

Perhaps you are referring to the separation of powers, M'kay?

i am going to ignore you.
whatever you are doing here - enjoy
but, to my experience
your short tenure has disappointed.

m'kay?

 

[heathergives]

i am going to ignore you.
whatever you are doing here - enjoy
but, to my experience
your short tenure has disappointed.

m'kay?

https://sayingimages.com/wp-content/uploads/not-sure-heartbroken-meme.jpg

 

[Rightguide]

Did you read the Mueller report?

Yep, have the .PDF right here on my computer.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Yep, have the .PDF right here on my computer.

Does it read like fiction?

 

[icanhelp1]

Did you read the Mueller report?

Just wondering; do you know what a charging document is? Do you know what it's used for? Do you know what standing in a court of law means? Do you know what the original intent of the investigation was. Do you know what executive privilege is?
Do you understand the statute of obstruction of justice? Do you know the difference between article 1 and article 2? If you truly understand all of the above then you would have a position on what's going on other than Trump is a Dictator.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Just wondering; do you know what a charging document is? Do you know what it's used for? Do you know what standing in a court of law means? Do you know what the original intent of the investigation was. Do you know what executive privilege is?
Do you understand the statute of obstruction of justice? Do you know the difference between article 1 and article 2? If you truly understand all of the above then you would have a position on what's going on other than Trump is a Dictator.

if you say so

 

[Rightguide]

Does it read like fiction?

Volume I is a tedious legal document. Volume II is a boring political document with little legal significance. Together they expose all the reasons why there were no findings of collusion, cooperation, or conspiracy with the Russians, and why there was no finding of Obstruction of Justice. You just have to understand the law and English to comprehend it all.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Volume I is a tedious legal document. Volume II is a boring political document with little legal significance. Together they expose all the reasons why there were no findings of collusion, cooperation, or conspiracy with the Russians, and why there was no finding of Obstruction of Justice. You just have to understand the law and English to comprehend it all.

Ya don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

The Mueller report confirmed what we already knew, Trump obstructed justice and willingly and consciously welcomed assistance from the Russian government that helped him win the 2016 election. There was no documentation of quid pro quo but clearly the campaign sought political help from the Russians.

 

[heathergives]

Ya don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7c1643451b8ce6a476c0e4bfe98cb90b303a076ace447f2ef0090d2ae5a45048.jpg

 

[icanhelp1]

Ya don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Do you understand why volume 2 is a political document and not a legal charging document?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7c1643451b8ce6a476c0e4bfe98cb90b303a076ace447f2ef0090d2ae5a45048.jpg

go bother someone else, child

 

[heathergives]

go bother someone else, child

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/b8/ec/59b8ecef9bbbdb009691eaab6972b38e.jpg

 

[cleaver]

Volume I is a tedious legal document. Volume II is a boring political document with little legal significance. Together they expose all the reasons why there were no findings of collusion, cooperation, or conspiracy with the Russians, and why there was no finding of Obstruction of Justice. You just have to understand the law and English to comprehend it all.

just to clarify:

there are two legitimate avenues for redress if in in this case, infractions have occurred.

one is purely legal with all the strictures inherent
the other is almost purely political - with greater legitimate latitude.

hence 2 parts to the document.

while practice, procedure and precedent may preclude action in the first part - i.e. a sitting chief executive cannot be indicted,
the political realm - the one covered by the "boring" part without "legal significance" is wide open...

hence current political turmoil.

to dismiss the turmoil as somehow illegitimate is naive
and antithetical to a constitution that
enshrined a political redress equally with a strictly "legal" one.

 

[silver gurl]

Don't like Warren but hundreds of attorneys cant be wrong?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

 

[cleaver]

Don't like Warren but hundreds of attorneys cant be wrong?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

absolutely on point.

despite whatever the executive branch
and 1/2 of the legislative branch
may proclaim...

these attorneys may be wrong in the end,
but...

there is a political process that can and will play out.

as to liz, right with you.

 

[Rightguide]

Ya don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

The Mueller report confirmed what we already knew, Trump obstructed justice and willingly and consciously welcomed assistance from the Russian government that helped him win the 2016 election. There was no documentation of quid pro quo but clearly the campaign sought political help from the Russians.

It helps to understand what obstruction of justice is and where it applies, where it doesn't, and when and where it can be applied to the President vis a vis him exercising his Art. II authority.

Bill Barr, whether you like him or not is one of the preeminent legal minds in the United States. You would serve yourself well to read his letter I linked to the other day in order to understand why Mueller's intent to expand and reinterpret the meaning of 18 USC §1512(c)(2) would subvert Article II of the Constitution and could not in good conscience be applied to the President of the United States, not because he was a sitting President but because it would destroy the Presidency, the Executive Branch, and the DOJ as well. You can read it here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KPyQWwWfxLZ8dppih88G3yDRvJfAirrG/view

 

[Sean]

Don't like Warren but hundreds of attorneys cant be wrong?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

I'm a big Liz Warren fan. Unfortunately, she scares the $$$ that own your political system so I don't think she'll get the nom.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Don't like Warren but hundreds of attorneys cant be wrong?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

I like Elizabeth but I think she should have laughed off the Pocahontas insult rather than get pissed off. Kamala Harris was asked what she thought of Trump calling her a nasty woman. She appropriately laughed if off as if it was coming from a child telling fart jokes. Dismiss is nicknames as being irrelevant then go right back to talking to the adults in the room.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

It helps to understand what obstruction of justice is and where it applies, where it doesn't, and when and where it can be applied to the President vis a vis him exercising his Art. II authority.

Bill Barr, whether you like him or not is one of the preeminent legal minds in the United States. You would serve yourself well to read his letter I linked to the other day in order to understand why Mueller's intent to expand and reinterpret the meaning of 18 USC §1512(c)(2) would subvert Article II of the Constitution and could not in good conscience be applied to the President of the United States, not because he was a sitting President but because it would destroy the Presidency, the Executive Branch, and the DOJ as well. You can read it here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KPyQWwWfxLZ8dppih88G3yDRvJfAirrG/view

Barr applied for the job of being Trump's personal AG buy submitting to the DOJ his opinion that the President is above the law. Based on that alone as well as his actions to control the Mueller report information convinced me that he was already corrupt before being given the job of being Trump's Roy Cohen. He's corrupt and therfore has zero credibility.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Donny not only needs to be removed, he needs to be imprisoned. And his lackeys on the SCOTUS need to be removed since he was never a legitimate Office Holder having been a Putin Stooge from Day 1.

SCOTUS members are not appointed by the POTUS. They are nominated and the Senate says yes or no.

 

[Rightguide]

just to clarify:

there are two legitimate avenues for redress if in in this case, infractions have occurred.

one is purely legal with all the strictures inherent
the other is almost purely political - with greater legitimate latitude.

hence 2 parts to the document.

while practice, procedure and precedent may preclude action in the first part - i.e. a sitting chief executive cannot be indicted,
the political realm - the one covered by the "boring" part without "legal significance" is wide open...

hence current political turmoil.

to dismiss the turmoil as somehow illegitimate is naive
and antithetical to a constitution that
enshrined a political redress equally with a strictly "legal" one.

With all due respect you misunderstand the purpose of the Special Counsel who is an employee of the DOJ, a subordinate of the Attorney General, and the President of the United States. Special counsel's job, as defined by current law and DOj regulation, is not to impanel grand juries, subpoena hundreds of people, employ dozens of FBI agents, demand over a million documents, and investigate Americans in order to write an impeachment report for the House of Representatives that assists them in overthrowing anyone in the Executive Branch, let alone the President. That would be unconstitutional.

In fact current law leaves the entirety of the matter to the discretion of the Attorney General, who by the way is under no legal obligation to turn over a single word of the Special Counsel's Report to Congress or anyone else. the law was written that way, by Democrats, after the Clinton impeachment to protect its findings from being exploited politically. However, mentally impaired Democrats of today have forgotten the law they wrote in order to exploit it exclusively for political reasons. The Hypocrites.

 

[Rightguide]

Barr applied for the job of being Trump's personal AG buy submitting to the DOJ his opinion that the President is above the law. Based on that alone as well as his actions to control the Mueller report information convinced me that he was already corrupt before being given the job of being Trump's Roy Cohen. He's corrupt and therfore has zero credibility.

Stop with that bullshit. Every AG is appointed by the President. Remember when Eric Holder proudly proclaimed he was Obama's "wingman?" I wasn't here to see if you crapped your pants over that or not, but did you? i didn't think so.

 

[cleaver]

thanks. i have read it.

the political redress enshrined in the constitution
is proscribed precisely to have a check
on those issues that go to contemporary issues
that threaten the office...

outside of the strictly "legal" ones - of which barr, a partisan appointee, has current jurisdiction.

the impending nixon impeachment
(3 of 5 articles were debated and passed by the house prior to his resignation)
hinged upon obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of congress...

hmmmmm?

so....
despite any such absolute declarations
and...
listening to the vigorous debate in many quarters...

there is still fire beneath all the choreographed smoke.

 

[jaF0]

one who post like Yoda

no reply to

nevermore

 

[jaF0]

SCOTUS members are not appointed by the POTUS. They are nominated and the Senate says yes or no.

Nominated by a PUTZ lackey of Putin

Senate controlled by a putz lackey of Donny.

Neither Scrote is valid and both should be removed.