POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

What is there to be confused about? When nothing is on the line (like say giving a speech) he will say whatever is on his mind but when push comes to shove he wont go against his paymasters. The man is spineless.

Yup. Another example of the cowardice of most of elected Washington D.C.

In an opinion piece for USA Today Bruce Bartlett notes that "those few Republican members of Congress who voice concerns about Trump, such as John McCain or Lindsey Graham, don’t follow through with action, and they continue to vote in lockstep for every Trump initiative and nominee." They're all attention whores, not unlike their president. As long as they get their name in the headlines, they're satisfied. The truth is, any one of us could randomly pick 435 people off the streets and we'd be exponentially better off as far as the congress goes than we are now.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Apparently Kellyanne Conway may be one of the leakers...

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Apparently Kellyanne Conway may be one of the leakers...

My God that would be cherry.

Meanwhile, we're not the only country with old Republicans.

 

[aparch]

Congressman introduces Covfefe act

Wow. Epic level trolling. I tip my cap to this gentleman.

 

[aparch]

President Trump's travel ban struck down by second appeals court

So when was all of this "Winning" Trump promised supposed to happen?

 

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

President Trump's travel ban struck down by second appeals court

0-4. He's now the Buffalo Bills of appeals courts.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

President Trump's travel ban struck down by second appeals court

Yeah, when you lose in both the 9th and the 4th it's time to hang em up. The electoral college equivalent would be losing California and Oklahoma.

God though it would be nice for SCOTUS to rule 9-zip.

But I don't even know why they'd grant cert. There's no disagreement, here. The entire Judiciary has told Dump not "No," but "F-ck No."

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

So when was all of this "Winning" Trump promised supposed to happen?

Maybe these people know.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

0-4. He's now the Buffalo Bills of appeals courts.

Wide right.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Not sure I get Wisco's take here. If Trump is found to have committed crimes, Dems should let it slide because they're never find enough votes in the Senate to convict? Um...okay?

While I certainly agree gutless weasels in the Senate will never convict Trump even if he's shown on video giving Putin a bj, its certainly worth the Dems and the country's time to put him on trail. If the GOP STILL wants to stand by him they can answer to the voters during the next election.

As has been written, we already have an obstruction of justice charge. Trump admits it. You can't call the head of the FBI into your office and tell him to stop an investigation into one of your hires. If Dems are fortunate enough to retake the House next year, start the hearings and if the evidence continues to point in that direction start drafting the impeachment documents. Yes he may very well be acquitted but perhaps future Presidents will be more inclined to be a little more subtle when they break the law.

Not sure how you get that slant from what I said? I was merely observing that if the Senate has the political will, they don't need proof of anything to impeach a President. When voters in 51% of congressional districts and in 34 states demand Trump be fired, he will be. For any reason or no reason. Probably not before.

We're actually not entirely sure that the President can't call the head of the FBI into his office and direct him to stop an investigation. Interestingly, it was Comey's take in his testimony that the President could, in fact, do exactly that if he so chooses.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

We're actually not entirely sure that the President can't call the head of the FBI into his office and direct him to stop an investigation. Interestingly, it was Comey's take in his testimony that the President could, in fact, do exactly that if he so chooses.

There are plenty of things you can legally do which will still get you fired. It's not illegal* to sleep with the boss's wife. But it's not a great retention plan, either.

* Edit: Holy cats, it IS in some places. I had no idea.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

There are plenty of things you can legally do which will still get you fired. It's not illegal* to sleep with the boss's wife. But it's not a great retention plan, either.

* Edit: Holy cats, it IS in some places. I had no idea.

Well yes, I agree. Of course there is always the odd instance in which that is exactly how you become the boss.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Trump's America.

Federal Judge Thomas McCoun granted bond for Russell Friday, writing there was no clear and convincing evidence "the defendant represents a threat to any person or community."

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

And Trump holds a Presser touting how successful all his legislation is and so his Cabinet members can publicly praise him. Thankfully I was hanging out the laundry

 

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

And Trump holds a Presser touting how successful all his legislation is and so his Cabinet members can publicly praise him. Thankfully I was hanging out the laundry

He's switching things up, though.

Today, Tillerson is fondling the balls while DeVos works the shaft.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

We're actually not entirely sure that the President can't call the head of the FBI into his office and direct him to stop an investigation. Interestingly, it was Comey's take in his testimony that the President could, in fact, do exactly that if he so chooses.

That's why criminal statutes have elements.

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress . . . .


Under this particular obstruction statute (U.S.C. section 1505), Trump may have the power, but if he exercises that power "corruptly," then it appears his actions may still fall within the statute. I'm sure there is case law clarifying that to some extent.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Trump's America.

Paraphrasing a bit of the story: This guy Russell came to light because his roommate, Devon Arthurs, who was a neo nazi along with Russell and their other two roommates, naturally decided to convert to Islam at some point. (??) But much to his surprise and dismay, his 3 nazi roommates were being disrespectful towards his new found faith. So Arthurs killed two of them...

Yep... typical Monday in Florida.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Under this particular obstruction statute (U.S.C. section 1505), Trump may have the power, but if he exercises that power "corruptly," then it appears his actions may still fall within the statute. I'm sure there is case law clarifying that to some extent.

So a judge has the power to sentence you, but if he tries to work a deal where he'll give you a tougher sentence if you don't rub one out then he's in trouble.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

We're actually not entirely sure that the President can't call the head of the FBI into his office and direct him to stop an investigation. Interestingly, it was Comey's take in his testimony that the President could, in fact, do exactly that if he so chooses.

The only reason this is still an "unanswered" question is because the talking heads on TV have to be somewhat balanced between trump supporters and people who actually understand how the law works and what actually constitutes obstruction. If, in fact, trump did what Comey says he did, he committed obstruction. Your false equivalency seeking ilk may want to see this differently but it just ain't true. Sort of like how I wish the scoreboard at the United Center was somehow wrong when it said Denver 6 Notre Dame 1, but that just isn't what it said, it's what actually happened. trump committed obstruction, plain and simple. Now, much like the congress needs no REAL reason to impeach or convict a president, a president breaking the law or the rules does not necessarily means he will be impeached as long as there are more people with little "r"s next to their names than little "d"s.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

* Edit: Holy cats, it IS in some places. I had no idea.

What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it!