Simple Question for the Trump illiterates
Dec 19, 2019 18:24:38 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I'm thirty years off...
Tell me about it....
The fun parts...
Tell me about it....
The fun parts...
I want my tombstone to read "I was wrong all of my life, but I am dear right now."
Dec 19, 2019 23:12:43 #
byronglimish wrote:
Enjoy, my friend and brother.
For 10 years already, and I am busier now than when I worked.
(I consider my robe work clothes)
Dec 20, 2019 08:31:20 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Mikeyavelli wrote:
For 10 years already, and I am busier now than when I worked.
(I consider my robe work clothes)
(I consider my robe work clothes)
Check out topic: BIDEN APPROVES $1 BILLION IN WEAPONS FOR ISRAEL AMID RAFAH TENSIONS
Dec 20, 2019 09:03:29 #
JFlorio wrote:
LOL. You saved your comments with the last sentence. I was gonna ask you if you knew who you were talking to. Besides, in 2018 a court found Ukrainians complicit in interfering in the 2016 presidential election for the benefit of the Clinton campaign.
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201812141070671076-Ukraine-Court-Reveals-Interfered-Election-Manafort/
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201812141070671076-Ukraine-Court-Reveals-Interfered-Election-Manafort/
Two things:
A- If you look at the top of the article you will see that this is an opinion piece. An opinion piece reflects the view of the author.
B- Sputnik News comes out of Russia. Russia has been selling this idea in many ways. Not the least of which is through “news” articles.
https://sputniknews.com/docs/about/index/
Dec 20, 2019 09:07:14 #
cbpat1 wrote:
AirForce can I ask you a serious question without ... (show quote)
He’s just being a monkey fighter. When someone starts with this game I generally just walk away and ignore them.
Dec 20, 2019 09:43:52 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Asked and answered.
Saspatz007 wrote:
Two things:
A- If you look at the top of the article you will see that this is an opinion piece. An opinion piece reflects the view of the author.
B- Sputnik News comes out of Russia. Russia has been selling this idea in many ways. Not the least of which is through “news” articles.
https://sputniknews.com/docs/about/index/
A- If you look at the top of the article you will see that this is an opinion piece. An opinion piece reflects the view of the author.
B- Sputnik News comes out of Russia. Russia has been selling this idea in many ways. Not the least of which is through “news” articles.
https://sputniknews.com/docs/about/index/
Dec 20, 2019 09:48:56 #
JFlorio wrote:
So all administrations have something to hide? Because I can’t remember the last time Executive Privelage wasn’t used by an administration at some point.
I think you would be interested in how George Washington limited Executive Privilege.
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2893&context=mlr
Page 2
Paragraph 5
Sentence 2
“At no point did he believe that a president could withhold information to protect himself from politically embarrassing information or to cover-up conversations about potential wrongdoing in the White House.”
I firmly believe that this will end up before SCOTUS. The last time a case of executive privilege came before the court was United States v Nixon.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-nixon-3
The finding of the court was unanimous.
Nixon would be required to produce the evidence subpoenaed by the special prosecutor.
Whether this particular case will be ruled in favor of the president or in favor of the House remains to be seen.
Check out topic: This can't be good.
Dec 20, 2019 09:54:03 #
JFlorio wrote:
That’s within his right. He can invoke such privilege for anyone in the Executive Branch. The proper place for the answer to that question is the judicial branch, which then rules on the validity of said subpoena. That’ exactly where it is now in the Supreme Court. They will rule.
I don’t see it on the calendar.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx
Did I miss something ?
Dec 20, 2019 10:03:24 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Saspatz007 wrote:
I don’t see it on the calendar.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx
Did I miss something ?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx
Did I miss something ?
I believe I heard on the news the question had been sent to the courts. I could be wrong. They may have been talking about where the question should end up. Either way that’s how it is settled. The Congress has oversight and the Executive Branch can invoke executive privilege. When the two branch’s conflict the third branch, Judicial settles the question.
Dec 20, 2019 11:21:10 #
JFlorio wrote:
Not just that. Many times many members of the Executive Branch carry in their heads private and confidential information. Much of invoking privilege is not about innocence or guilt it’s about leaks. I wonder why privilege and ignoring subpoena’s was fine with these loons when Holder was subpoenaed in the Fast and Furious investigation. The hypocrisy is astounding. Exactly why Trump will probably be elected again.
Holders case was recently settled.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/june-2019/aba-legal-fact-check--as-the-house-judiciary-committee-recommend/
He was not found to be in contempt of Congress. However, he was ordered to turn over any “non-privileged “ documents.
Dec 20, 2019 11:47:43 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
So? It was settled where I said it should be. I believe Holder was found in contempt of Congress but not criminally in contempt.
Saspatz007 wrote:
Holders case was recently settled.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/june-2019/aba-legal-fact-check--as-the-house-judiciary-committee-recommend/
He was not found to be in contempt of Congress. However, he was ordered to turn over any “non-privileged “ documents.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/june-2019/aba-legal-fact-check--as-the-house-judiciary-committee-recommend/
He was not found to be in contempt of Congress. However, he was ordered to turn over any “non-privileged “ documents.
Check out topic: Swing State Voters Are So Over the Trump Trial
Dec 20, 2019 12:05:04 #
JFlorio wrote:
So? It was settled where I said it should be. I believe Holder was found in contempt of Congress but not criminally in contempt.
Hell Mr. Pott...meet Mr. Kettle!
OR perhaps you're more familiar with: What's good for the goose is often good for the gander!
Republicans keep crying that the impeachment process isn't being done fairly - all the while knowing that Dems are following the very rules instituted by the republican party back in 2014. Also, Graham and others 'now' don't want the Senate trial to have witnesses, but in Clinton's case Graham insisted that witnesses be called. Republicans speak of dems 'defying the law' -yet they are the ones who are telling witnesses to defy subpoenas and not testify.
J: at your age I'm sure you're aware that "you can't have your cake and eat it too!" - good day!
Dec 20, 2019 12:08:28 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
The House does not make the rules for the Senate. Period.
JediKnight wrote:
Hell Mr. Pott...meet Mr. Kettle! br br OR perhap... (show quote)
Dec 20, 2019 12:10:35 #
JFlorio wrote:
The House does not make the rules for the Senate. Period.
No, but the Constitution does! period.
So, for the time being, we now simply have an IMPOTUS - (impeached president)….. 
Dec 20, 2019 12:18:42 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
JediKnight wrote:
No, but the Constitution does! period. So, for the time being, we now simply have an IMPOTUS - (impeached president)…..
So, for the time being, we now simply have an IMPOTUS - (impeached president)….. Has anyone denied that? Not sure I see your point. Pelosi runs the House. McConnell runs the Senate. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. The House was in a hurry. Said it was very urgent. Now a delay. Doesn’t make sense.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.