Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You trying to put the Obama campaign's violations on par with what Cohen has plead guilty to, is what I was pointing out as flawed

I think you missed the context of that conversation. The other fellow was operating under a particular set of assumptions: treating the payment to Stephanie Clifford as a "campaign contribution" from Donald Trump to his own campaign for president. I rejected and continue to reject that set of assumptions, but I played along. The fellow accused Trump of breaking the law by committing a reporting violation. I pointed out that every president campaign commits this type of violation and noted that the Obama campaign was particularly egregious in that regard.

Again, this is in no way meant to equate the Clifford payment to the Obama campaign reporting violations.
 
Papadopoulos convicted

Manafort convicted after trial

General Flynn convicted

Cohen convicted

Sam Patten convicted

12 Russian spies charged

13 Russian Nationals charged

Rick Gates convicted

I've already predicted "It's not like he committed murder!" as a defense of DJT on this forum.

Your standards for presidential behavior are absurd.


Jack shit to do with trump..enjoy tho
 
I have faith that the American people won't stand for a leader making himself an untouchable king. We don't have those on this side of the ocean.

R or D, nobody should support this. Because next time it'll be the other guy getting away with criminality.
I'm not as optimistic as you. I remember the guys with the rather be Russian than Democrat t-shirts. They want authoritarianism. They have no understanding of history.
 
I'm not as optimistic as you. I remember the guys with the rather be Russian than Democrat t-shirts. They want authoritarianism. They have no understanding of history.
I see that the same as the Trumpbots latching onto a few examples that suit their rhetoric.

It's a small but vocal subgroup.

Real Americans far outnumber those clueless dopes.
 
People talk of a possible future Constitutional crisis, but IMO we're already there.
It's going to happen. You don't float firing the AG so far out ahead unless you fully plan to do it.

I wonder about your definition of "constitutional crisis". The Office of the Attorney General was created by legislation, not by the US Constitution, and the entire Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. The president, as head of the executive branch and in the absence of any constitutional or legislative restrictions, has the unfettered ability to hire or fire any executive branch officials for any reason.
 
Last edited:
Take your Sean Hannity shit elsewhere Bob. There was no abuse of power, and Obama directed NO ONE to spy on Donnie.

Yeah we are still waiting for Nunes to bust that theory wide open, hows that going so far Bob? Nunes travelled to UK to stir shit up about Steele, no agency would acknowledge his dumb ass, so he wasted all those tax dollars flying around in his own cloud.



Hi, why was Bruce Ohr questioned extensively this week?


Why were all these people fired, demoted, or forced to resign?


Why did Strzoks text say “potus wants to know everything”






Do you actually believe obama always “found out about it on tv”?

<36>
 
For a witch hunt it's sure finding a lot of witches with foreign money and influence peddling.

How weird, it's probably all just appearances.
@kahiljabroni is hip to the Giuliani talking point that every plea and conviction has nothing to do with Trump.

They're all his criminal friends, lawyers, confidants, best people.
Trump will go down in history as undeniably corrupt. He's Russian/Ukraine property.
 
I wonder about your definition of "constitutional crisis". The Office of the Attorney General was created by legislation, not by the US Constitution, and the entire Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. The president, as head of the Executive Branch and in the absence of any Constitutional restrictions, has the unfettered ability to hire or fire any Executive Branch officials he pleases for any reason.
Not if he’s firing them with a corrupt intent to obstruct justice.
 
Literally nobody (who hasn’t chopped their dick off) cares.
 
For a witch hunt it's sure finding a lot of witches with foreign money and influence peddling.

How weird, it's probably all just appearances.
@kahiljabroni is hip to the Giuliani talking point that every plea and conviction has nothing to do with Trump.

They're all his criminal friends, lawyers, confidants, best people.
Trump will go down in history as undeniably corrupt. He's Russian/Ukraine property.



And do you think if we looked into any other presidents, we’d find anything different?



The Clintons set up an entire sham charity for just this sort of situation.



Welcome to politics.
 
50K? If only the can reach the same numbers the Clinton's made off of Uranium One...
 
And do you think if we looked into any other presidents, we’d find anything different?



The Clintons set up an entire sham charity for just this sort of situation.



Welcome to politics.
You mean the top rated charity that has been investigated numerous times with no wrongdoing found? You want an actual sham foundation that steals money from cancer kids take a look at the Trump foundation.
 
Not if he’s firing them with a corrupt intent to obstruct justice.
The firing of executive branch officials is a constitutionally protected act just as is the act of pardoning. It should never be used as the actus reus in an obstruction charge. Do you believe that President George H.W. Bush committed obstruction of justice by pardoning Caspar Weinberger?
 
Last edited:
I have faith that the American people won't stand for a leader making himself an untouchable king. We don't have those on this side of the ocean.

R or D, nobody should support this. Because next time it'll be the other guy getting away with criminality.

Bro there are already murkans who would rather be Russian. Jus saying.
 
I wonder about your definition of "constitutional crisis". The Office of the Attorney General was created by legislation, not by the US Constitution, and the entire Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. The president, as head of the Executive Branch and in the absence of any constitutional restrictions, has the unfettered ability to hire or fire any Executive Branch officials for any reason.
And his reasons can be examined. He can fire certain people. He can also be charged with offenses based upon his reasoning for doing so.

For example, the president can hire a new attorney general...and if it was found he did so because the new hire gave him money, that's a crime.

Problem with Trump firing Sessions and hiring someone else is that everyone knows why he's doing it. People will look into it and viola, obstructing justice.
 
Bro there are already murkans who would rather be Russian. Jus saying.
I 'splained in an exchange upthread that I think such people are a tiny percentage.
I'm not too concerned by the extreme-extreme.
It's a cult with a short lifespan, equivalent to the remaining years of this fat oaf of a compromised president.
 
You mean the top rated charity that has been investigated numerous times with no wrongdoing found? You want an actual sham foundation that steals money from cancer kids take a look at the Trump foundation.


You mean the “top rated” charity after they cleaned up their books for Hillary’s failed presidential attempt?


Because before that they were on the charity watchdog list for having horrific donation percentages (those reported by the Clintons themselves) and books that were highly questionable, and that made it not possible for the charity watchdog to even assess their credibility.



Feel free to look all this up folks. The documents are freely available. The Clinton foundation was a scam set up so wealthy foreigners could flood money to them anonymously.
 
The firing of Executive Branch officials is a constitutionally protected act just as is the act of pardoning. It should never be used as the actus reus in an obstruction charge. Do you believe that President George H.W. Bush committed obstruction of justice by pardoning Caspar Weinberger?
If your belief is that the President can lawfully fire people who are investigating him to interfere in said investigation, there is no reasoning with you and you need to just state that you believe the law does not apply to the President. You can also stop posting except occasional posts consisting entirely of “I believe the President is above the law.”

(This would also explain your entire post history for the last several months)

Please state for the record if you believe that the President can lawfully terminate investigations into his own possible wrongdoing. No deflections. No “what about this other President”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top