Hundreds of former prosecutors say that Trump would have been charged...

andnowweknow said:
Shocking that a liar would defend liars. Liar.

I suppose you might really not understand what Mueller cleared laid out regarding DOJ policy on indictment of presidents...?

Nah, you just have no integrity.
Click to expand...
Mueller did not recommend any prosecution. You're delusional and it's getting weird. Get a grip on yourself...
 
Last edited:
zebby23 said:
Nothing to see here. This would be his response if Trump killed someone or grabbed a female by the...
Click to expand...
He should grab you by the neck and slap some sense into you. Get a grip dude.
 
Sad that the only conservative response is more gimmicks. Self taught NPC responses
 
JamesRussler said:
Quiet, Dorkballs
Click to expand...

Good retort.

But seriously, you're argument that because the Constitution authorizes the President to do X, he can never break the law when utilizing that X, is retarded, based on no real legal insight, and is not supported by more than a fraction of criminal lawyers.

You could just as easily argue that because the President is authorized by the Constitution to act as Commander in Chief, he could order the military to fire on American civilian's without cause, and there would be nothing we could do about it. That would be retarded, as crimes for murder and such are not superseded because the president has control over our military.

Likewise with your theory on obstruction. You are arguing that trump cannot commit obstruction so long as he uses the powers of his office, to commit obstruction. It's a nonsensical theory, certainly an immoral one, and cuts against everything the founders argued for in their purpose of creating checks and balances.

But I'm not surprised that a federalist society member would be so quick to shit on the founders intent the moment they realized it wouldn't get them to the political outcome they wanted.
 
vengeful said:
Was Trump allowed to fire Mueller? Cause I'm sure one of the links you posted earlier said only the AG could do that.
Click to expand...

He can direct his AG to do it. The AG must comply, or else resign. Reasons for removal include "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies." It's a risky move if the AG refuses, as shown by the Saturday Night Massacre, but it is perfectly legal based on what we've seen from Strzok, et al.
 
Liquid Smoke said:
Mueller did not recommend any prosecution. You're delusion and it's getting weird. Get a grip on yourself...
Click to expand...
Mueller did not have a choice, and discussed this DOJ policy within the first two pages. You should read the summaries at least if you're not interested in the whole report.
 
Darkballs said:
Good retort.

But seriously, you're argument that because the Constitution authorizes the President to do X, he can never break the law when utilizing that X, is retarded
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? If Trump wants to pardon everyone indicted in Mueller's investigation (except Cohen, fuck him), is that obstruction too? Is it a crime for you to assert your 5th Amendment privilege, considering it hinders police investigations? Of course not. That's all I said. People like you seem to have this notion that we are obligated to roll out the red carpet for zealous prosecutors or risk being charged with obstruction.

By contrast, the Constitution doesn't give anyone a right to smash their Blackberry with a hammer, and such conduct can rightly serve as the basis for an obstruction charge (assuming the Blackberry is evidence in a validly predicated investigation).

You could just as easily argue that because the President is authorized by the Constitution to act as Commander in Chief, he could order the military to fire on American civilian's without cause, and there would be nothing we could do about it. That would be retarded, as crimes for murder and such are not superseded because the president has control over our military.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't authorize the President to do whatever he wants with the military. I don't know where you got that from.

Likewise with your theory on obstruction. You are arguing that trump cannot commit obstruction so long as he uses the powers of his office, to commit obstruction. It's a nonsensical theory, certainly an immoral one, and cuts against everything the founders argued for in their purpose of creating checks and balances.
Click to expand...

No, your argument is nonsensical, and runs counter to the vision of the Framers.

But I'm not surprised that a federalist society member would be so quick to shit on the founders intent the moment they realized it wouldn't get them to the political outcome they wanted.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you say, Dorkballs!
 
Should fire and replace the whole lot.

Also...where were they when Hillary got let off
 
Hundreds of hammers think everything is a nail. Who knew?
 
JamesRussler said:
Oh yeah? If Trump wants to pardon everyone indicted in Mueller's investigation (except Cohen, fuck him), is that obstruction too?
Click to expand...

Depends on the context. If the President is floating around the idea of pardons with the express purpose of hiding testimony that will hinder an investigation, then yes.

Stick to your point boy and try to flesh it out. Your argument is that so long as the president is granted X, he can never be accused of using X to commit a crime.


JamesRussler said:
I don't really care what you say, Dorkballs!
Click to expand...

Sure thing DickRussler.
 
Rematch said:
No evidence to sufficiently support collusion?
Click to expand...
Collusion isn't a crime, conspiracy was the inquiry.

And I'll repeat it for the thousandth time so perhaps it'll sink in, there need not be an underlying crime for obstruction to occur. That's not my opinion, it's just a fact of the matter and the fact that the simple logic game of why that is so eludes you makes my brain lament your existence in the sphere of humanity. It's beyond deep...
 
Mcountry said:
If they could charge him, they would. God I hope he gets a second term so I can read 4 more years of this shit.
Click to expand...

Heheheh trigger dem libz!!!

Damn right Cleetus!!
 
I feel like the same could be said about Hillary. Or many politicians TBH.

WHATABOUTISM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,982
Messages
55,459,226
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top