scrappinmama
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,009
Jun 26, 2014 12:54:09 GMT
|
Post by scrappinmama on Dec 10, 2018 0:43:59 GMT
Someone should tell him can jump ship but it's too late to avoid the consequences of having been Pence's right hand guy. I can't imagine why Mark Meadows would want to take on the CoS job. I'd really like to know how they define "the cause." That's what popped out to me. It appears that the cause is a racist agenda that will push this country in to darkness.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 1:34:00 GMT
😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥴
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Dec 10, 2018 2:04:42 GMT
I have said many times that I like it when someone says so much better what I was trying to say. David Rothkopf.. “It is time to re-examine the idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Following that re-examination it will also be time to reject the idea. First, we need to remind the majority of American people that this is not a law nor is it a constitutional requirement.” “Rather the idea is a Department of Justice guideline. However, it is one that runs directly contrary to the idea that no man or woman is above the law-including the president of the United States. This is idea is a founding principle of this Republic,born of the abuses of a king.” “The argument that presidents should not be indicted is based on a couple of core theories. One is that such indictments would distract presidents from their duties. This is a flawed notion on several levels.” “First, the idea that the president is too busy to face the due process of our system of justice would seem to establish the idea that he or she is above the law. Next, the idea that such cases would be brought without merit is one that doesn't exist elsewhere.” “Somehow, this notion gives the benefit of the doubt to the president over those bringing the charges which would implicitly suggest a superiority of mission for the president above that of the courts.” “That would seem to run contrary to the ideas underpinning core decisions of the Supreme Court like Marbury v. Madison. If an indictment is brought following the appropriate steps of due process, why should it not be honored? Why should it wait?” “Further, of course, we are presented with the very real case that a president could commit crimes in order to become president and then be protected from prosecution by holding the office he achieved through fraud, deception or other crimes.” “Those who argue against indictment of presidents say the Constitution says the responsibility to enforce such laws rests with the Congress via the route of impeachment. First, while the Constitution creates that mechanism for dealing with...” “Treason, Bribery and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" it is silent on whether that is the only avenue available for dealing with other issues. It also should be noted while it grants members of Congress certain immunities it grants none to the president.” “Further, since John Marshall, it has been believed by the Supreme Court that presidents are subject to subpoena power...which raises the question, "Why that and not a more serious form of legal process like an indictment." “Scholars are divided on the issue. And while some memoranda on the point are the president should not be indicted, the ones I am familiar with were created by scholars with at least some interest in protecting or serving the president.” “Which brings us to the impeachment process. While it was assumed Congress would serve as a check on the president through this process, it was done so by framers who did not know of our political party system and its abuses.” “It is very clear that the GOP Senate is so political that it has repeatedly ignored its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. What are we to do as a nation if pols take over one or the other house of our legislature and enable commissions of crimes by a president?” “Because that is exactly what has happened. The GOP has essentially demonstrated that it will not uphold its constitutional responsibilities. So we must have a check against such willful nonfeasance. The courts are the only available answer short of new elections.” “Right now, we face the reality of a president who used fraud to enter office and who has violated his oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution on multiple levels--from ignoring the emoluments clause to serving foreign enemies at odds with American interests.” “He is defiling the White House, using it not as the seat of executive power in our government but as a hideout for him and his gang of liars, thieves and worse. Absent a true test of the idea of indicting a sitting president...” “...he will remain there, the worst example in our history of an idea that was anathema to our founders. He will be above the law and beyond its reach. He will continue to profit from his crimes and put our democracy and our security at risk. He will remain a threat.” “We must not let that happen simply because this idea is untested in the courts and to date has been dominated by the theoretical arguments of interested parties. We deserve better. Our system deserves better.” “And if in the end the courts reject the idea that a sitting president can be indicted then it will shift the responsibility on the Congress and on voters as they will know the risks we face.” “There is again a cancer on the presidency. It is the president himself but it puts us in dire jeopardy if we do not have a means to excise it that is above and beyond our broken, shameful politics. We should explore this avenue even as we pursue every other.” “Because if the facts of our time demonstrate one thing, it is the primary test America faces right now is whether it has the wherewithal to defend itself from the profound corruption and serial abuses of its president. That's why this is an issue for every one of us.” “And that is why it one we must address with all the urgency we can muster.” I couldn’t understand most of this but it’s very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 2:23:55 GMT
So true!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 6:29:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 13:44:10 GMT
How much longer do we need to be embarrassed on a daily basis by the buffoonish thinking and tweeting?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 6:29:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 13:51:51 GMT
Ah but there is more..
First..
“Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion.” @foxnews That’s because there was NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...”
followed by..
“which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!“
Kyle Griffin said yesterday trump had no public appearances on his schedule for today which means more time to watch Fox News which more then likely means more tweets.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 13:56:29 GMT
"I AM NOT A CROCK," 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 6:29:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 13:56:59 GMT
Well this is a first..
MSNBC..
“Jerome Corsi has filed a lawsuit accusing Mueller of blackmailing him to lie about President Trump in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
Good luck with that.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 13:57:24 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 13:58:55 GMT
Well this is a first.. MSNBC.. “Jerome Corsi has filed a lawsuit accusing Mueller of blackmailing him to lie about President Trump in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.” Good luck with that. Omg..the lengths these asshats go to. since when does Suponea mean " blackmail." ?
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 14:01:24 GMT
I can't wait until he's in cuffs...along with:
McConnell Graham Hannity Melania Jr, Eric the idiot Ivanka.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 6:29:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 14:01:46 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
“The U.S. has rejected language affirming global warming’s severity, joining Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.”
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 14:05:56 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 14:12:00 GMT
This is very disturbing to read...just prewarning you..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 6:29:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 14:20:09 GMT
How much longer do we need to be embarrassed on a daily basis by the buffoonish thinking and tweeting? Smocking Gun? bet that looks pretty
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 14:22:04 GMT
So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...” followed by.. “which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Total admission that it happened and he knew!!
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Dec 10, 2018 14:39:35 GMT
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Dec 10, 2018 14:48:27 GMT
How much longer do we need to be embarrassed on a daily basis by the buffoonish thinking and tweeting? Smocking Gun? bet that looks pretty Maybe a thread here? “Bought a smocking Gun in 2016. It was just a simple private Transaction on Etsy. Decided I’m really not cut out to be a smocker after all. Could’ve actually read up about it before I ruined all my granddaughter’s little Dresses, but I’m usually really good at Everything. Great, even. Plus, I broke the smocking Gun when I threw it against the wall in a fit of peek...peak...peeque. That’s the Etsy seller’s FAULT, right? I’m going to leave her a bad Review. It’s also my granddaughter’s fault for not being as Cute as the rest of the Family. SAD!”
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Dec 10, 2018 15:33:21 GMT
I can't wait until he's in cuffs...along with: McConnell Graham Hannity Melania Jr, Eric the idiot Ivanka. Please add Pence to this list, because there is no way with his close tie to Manafort, that he was unaware of the issues.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Dec 10, 2018 15:36:42 GMT
Ah but there is more.. First.. “Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion.” @foxnews That’s because there was NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...” followed by.. “which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!“ Kyle Griffin said yesterday trump had no public appearances on his schedule for today which means more time to watch Fox News which more then likely means more tweets. “Smocking Gun”?? And he did it twice! That’s not a typo.
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Dec 10, 2018 15:48:11 GMT
On another note, dt did not get the Nobel Peace Prize, announced earlier today.
He is on the Time Magazine Person of the Year shortlist, however, with Mueller, Separated Families, Khashoggi, Dr Christine Ford, and March For Our Lives activists, among others (Putin, Moon Jae-in). Here's hoping that Mueller, Separated Families or Dr Ford take the honor.
It would start another tweet storm 'totally rigged, yada yada yada.........'
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 6:29:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 15:54:11 GMT
Smocking Gun? bet that looks pretty Maybe a thread here? “Bought a smocking Gun in 2016. It was just a simple private Transaction on Etsy. Decided I’m really not cut out to be a smocker after all. Could’ve actually read up about it before I ruined all my granddaughter’s little Dresses, but I’m usually really good at Everything. Great, even. Plus, I broke the smocking Gun when I threw it against the wall in a fit of peek...peak...peeque. That’s the Etsy seller’s FAULT, right? I’m going to leave her a bad Review. It’s also my granddaughter’s fault for not being as Cute as the rest of the Family. SAD!” Love it ! you really are one of a kind AB
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 15:58:40 GMT
Here's hoping that Mueller, Separated Families or Dr Ford take the honor. Hopefully not Mueller this year.... Thinking that might send dt over the edge to fire Mueller. Although firing would open a whole other situation, not sure we really want that crisis. Dr Ford might also have the same affect on him too! I am liking March For Our Lives.............They a had good hand in getting out some of the vote... Good impact.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Dec 10, 2018 16:21:57 GMT
He is on the Time Magazine Person of the Year shortlist... You know what they say…one day you’re on the cover of Time, the next you’re doing time.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Dec 10, 2018 16:38:25 GMT
“The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion. Those reports essentially concluded that the president’s responsibilities are so important that an indictment would pose too many risks for the government to function properly.”
If that is the only reason The Justice Department has decided a sitting can’t be indicted, then IMO, it’s pretty short sited on their part. What about the “risks for the government “ if they leave a president in office who knows they will be indicted once they leave office? Do they think this person would act honorably and concern himself with what’s best for the country instead of taking steps to cover his ass for when he is out of office and facing potential indictments? I mean really? I agree... and in THIS case, our current one isn't doing much of anything that's Presidential anyway, so... there's that.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 16:43:44 GMT
Supreme Court sides with Planned Parenthood in funding fightBy Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter Updated 10:55 AM ET, Mon December 10, 2018 Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court Monday rebuffed efforts by states to block funding to Planned Parenthood. It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women. It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- voted to hear the case. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court's liberals in not taking up the case -- showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.Roberts and Kavanaugh "likely have serious objections," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible."At issue is not whether states can provide federal funding for abortion. Instead, the case concerned whether they can block Medicaid funds from offices that provide such women with annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening. ** more at link: www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-abortion/index.html"But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible." Also my thought that later they go after the bigger things, Roe v Wade etc... For now giving us a false sense of security....
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 17:12:22 GMT
Lots to think about.............. NYT’s Krugman: US, Russia and Saudi Arabia are ‘new axis of evil’BY MEGAN KELLER - 12/10/18 09:29 AM EST New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman said Monday that Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States represent a new axis of evil. "There's a new axis of evil: Russia, Saudi Arabia — and the United States," Krugman tweeted, linking to a story about how the three countries all declined to endorse the United Nation's latest climate study. The phrase "axis of evil" was coined by former President George W. Bush to refer to Iraq, Iran and North Korea in 2002, three countries accused of supporting terrorism or of nuclear proliferation. The United States, along with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, at a climate summit in Poland objected to language welcoming a report produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ** More at link: thehill.com/homenews/media/420525-nyts-krugman-says-us-in-new-axis-of-evil-with-russia-and-saudi-arabia'Axis of evil" brings back the talking I heard as a child............ the "axis" WWII, which we have finally recovered from..... The gorgeous Japanese maple in our yard, my grandmother would only call it the red maple. It was gorgeous ... It actually was when I saw it a few years ago! Memories... We also made Christmas stars, although they were really German Christmas stars, out of 'folding' paper strips....
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Dec 10, 2018 17:18:32 GMT
...one of the radio commentators this morning said it pretty plainly--
Q: "what countries do you NEVER see Trump (as candidate or President) criticize at all? Never say a negative word about?"
A: Russia and Saudi Arabia.
And why might that be the case? BUSINESS TIES and $$$.
Eric T: "oh, most of our financing comes from Russia..." even though he now says he didn't mean that when he said it. And Jared Kushner having taken trips to Saudi Arabia, and having long convos with ABS... coincidence? I think not.
I hope Mueller really DOES have Trump's tax returns (like some are speculating that he would have, as part of the investigation). But if not, they're pretty stupid overall, as evidenced many times already, so there should probably be enough to get all of them on SOMETHING. (Like was said before, Al Capone was caught on tax evasion- but the important thing is, he was caught.)
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Dec 10, 2018 17:21:57 GMT
You know what they say…one day you’re on the cover of Time, the next you’re doing time. From your mouth to God'e ears
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Dec 10, 2018 17:31:26 GMT
Paging lizacreates . I searched your recent posts (result below) because I thought the “private transaction” defense sounded like something you had floated. Absent the possibility that you are advising the president (heh), is this the generally assumed roadblock to any possible indictment for the payoffs accusation? Or is it the assumed (and presumably sucessful) defense if indicted? If not indict-able, would it still have any teeth, e.g. an ethics violation? Talk Type to me slowly, please. Well, not really. At least not in my (contrarian) opinion. After reading all three documents, I was hoping for something more substantive in terms of tying all this directly to Trump. I mean, campaign finance violation for Trump? We already knew about that from summer when Cohen allocuted. Who would indict or impeach a president on that (especially after the Edwards case that bombed)? It’s a felony for Trump if you can prove intent to protect his candidacy, and prosecution of a federal crime requires establishment of intent. Any lawyer can tell you all Trump has to say in defense is he paid off mistresses to spare his family the distress/embarrassment so they’re not campaign-related. How does a prosecutor prove otherwise? Because Cohen said so? Defense can say Cohen is a proven liar (and they’re right because he lied to banks and to Congress). See what I mean? [snip]
|
|