192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 02:19 pm
@Debra Law,
Keep playing oppressed female card. I'm sure it will garner sympathy here from some quarters.

You keep avoiding the fact that I didn't offer a legal opinion; you did. I posted a legal opinion that I think makes sense, I didn't claim to have arrived at through professional legal education or experience. You dismissed it out of hand as being childish. If you want to criticize McCarthy for not citing case law, that's fair (and a lot more valid that repeating "lemon drop" ad nauseum), but then you would need to cite your own to support the legal opinion you've offered us, and apparently you don't want to do that.



Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 02:22 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I would be very surprised if that polling of Canadians didn't match polling in every western nation re Trump.




I would be too, but I'm not sure what it would mean.

I would be very surprised if the polling of Canadians didn't match polling in every western nation re Obama, and he was a terrible president.
layman
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 02:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm probably as islamophobic as they come, but I can still give credit where credit is due.

I have to admit that they do have some enlightened views about women.
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 02:58 pm
@layman,
I-slam doesn't HAVE a sex problem; I-slam IS a sex problem.....
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  6  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 03:54 pm
Former U.S. attorney: 'Absolutely evidence' to begin obstruction of justice case

Quote:
Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara on Sunday said he thinks there is evidence to start a case for obstruction of justice against President Trump.

"I think there's absolutely evidence to begin a case -- I think it's very important for all sorts of armchair speculators in the law, to be clear that no one knows right now whether there is a provable case of obstruction," he said on ABC's "This Week."

"It's also true...that there's no basis to say there's no obstruction."
Bharara also said during the interview that there is evidence from someone who is under oath that "on at least one occasion, the president of the United States, cleared the room of his vice president and his attorney general and told his director of the FBI that he should essentially drop the case against his former national security adviser."

"Whether or not that is impeachable or that's indictable, that's a very serious thing and I'm not sure that people fully get that the standard is not just whether something is a crime or not," Bharara said.

"Whether or not it can be charged as a crime or Congress will impeach, it is a very serious thing."

He said there is a lot to be "frightened" and "outraged" about.
"That's an incredibly serious thing if people think that the president of the United States can tell heads of law enforcement agencies, based on his own whim or his own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular criminal cases against individuals," he said.


MSN.Com Link

Ex-Prosecutor Refused Trump’s Call, Got Fired The Next Day

“There has to be some kind of arms-length relationship” between the president and law enforcement, Preet Bharara says.

Quote:
President Donald Trump fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara the day after the prosecutor refused to return a call from him, Bharara said on ABC News’ “This Week” Sunday.

Bharara said he viewed direct contact from the president to himself, as a law-enforcement official, to be an inappropriate breach of protocol and reported it to the office of Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 9. “Twenty-two hours later, I was fired,” Bharara said.

Bharara’s account echoes the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey, who told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that Trump contacted him directly by phone numerous times between the presidential transition and Comey’s own dismissal last month. Comey also testified about one-on-one meetings he had with Trump, some of which he said left him feeling uncomfortable.

Bharara attended the Comey hearing.

“It’s a very weird and peculiar thing for a one-on-one conversation without the attorney general, without warning, between the president and me, or any United States attorney who has been asked to investigate various things,” Bharara said.

In reporting the phone call to the chief of staff to the attorney general, I said it appeared to be that he was trying to cultivate some kind of relationship,” Bharara said.

Comey similarly told Congress he believed Trump wanted to establish a “patronage” relationship between them.

In all, Trump telephoned Bharara three times between December and March, the ex-prosecutor said Sunday.

“They were very unusual phone calls. When I’ve been reading the stories about how the president has been contacting Jim Comey over time, it felt a little bit like déjà vu,” he said.

“The number of times that President [Barack] Obama called me in seven-and-a-half years was zero. The number of times I would’ve been expected to be called by the president of the United States would be zero, because there has to be some kind of arms-length relationship, given the jurisdiction various people have,” Bharara said.

Likewise, Comey testified to just two one-on-one conversations with Obama during the more than three years their terms overlapped.

After winning election in November, Trump met with Bharara, who had been U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York since 2009, and asked him to remain in his position when the new administration took office. Bharara agreed, only to be fired on March 10 by Sessions, who had asked for the resignations of other U.S. attorneys across the country who hadn’t already stepped aside in deference to the new administration.
It is common for incoming presidential administrations to replace U.S. attorneys, though the abruptness with which Sessions handled the matter sparked criticism.

“To this day, I have no idea why I was fired,” said Bharara, who stressed he was not alleging a direct connection between his refusal to speak to Trump by telephone and his subsequent dismissal. Sessions dismissed Bharara after he declined to voluntarily resign.

After “This Week” aired, Bharara used his Twitter account to comment on a critical tweet from Mark Corallo, a representative of Trump’s legal team. Bharara tweeted that Sessions’ office backed his concerns about the March 9 call from the president.


Huffington Post Link

Very interesting input from Preet Bharara.
layman
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 03:56 pm
Figures, sho nuff, eh?

Quote:
Bernie Sanders Vows To Fight Back Against Islamophobia In The 2016 Race


https://thinkprogress.org/bernie-sanders-vows-to-fight-back-against-islamophobia-in-the-2016-race-f6d662ff7723

=====

Quote:
Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Think Christians Are Fit For Public Office

Sanders doesn’t think Christians are fit to serve in government because they’re bigots. Basic Christian theology, in Sanders’s view, “is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.


http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/09/bernie-sanders-doesnt-think-christians-fit-public-office/
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 04:04 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
President Donald Trump fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara the day after the prosecutor refused to return a call from him, Bharara said on ABC News’ “This Week” Sunday.

“To this day, I have no idea why I was fired,” said Bharara.


This guy aint real bright, eh?

Soon we'll have a mob of "Fired DA's against Trump" protesting outside the White House 24/7.

layman
 
  -2  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 04:19 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Sanders doesn’t think Christians are fit to serve in government because they’re bigots. Basic Christian theology, in Sanders’s view, “is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.”


Well, ya can't say he doesn't know anything about muslims, at least, eh? Chistianity is an "insult" to them, sho nuff. One which justifies a death warrant fatwah, actually.

Quote:
Pakistani man sentenced to death for insulting Prophet Muhammad

A 30-year-old Pakistani man has been sentenced to death by a counterterrorism court, following the conviction on charges he insulted the Prophet Muhammed and his wives on Facebook, officials said Sunday.

Scores of others in Pakistan remain on death row for alleged blasphemy, including Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who remains in solitary confinement after being convicted in 2010 following a debate with two Muslim women in a Punjab village.


There will soon be an entertaining spectacle, cheered by all, when this women is publicly beheaded in the middle of a soccer field with 80,000 watching. I'm sure Cammie will be one of them. That'll learn them damn christians, eh?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 04:31 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Think Christians Are Fit For Public Office

Sanders doesn’t think Christians are fit to serve in government because they’re bigots. Basic Christian theology, in Sanders’s view, “is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.”


Bernie will win in a landslide in 2020 now, eh!?

A "landslide" in the progressive vote, I mean. He is assured of getting 100% of that.

There aint no right to "freedom of religion" with them. You're free to be a muslim, that's all--OR ELSE.

We can thank God that we have "progressive" appellate court judges in this country who prevent Trump from using "religious" tests to keep terrorists out of this country. That wouldn't be right.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 04:45 pm
An interesting PBS special from a few weeks ago, eh?

giujohn
 
  -4  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:12 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

pretty sick "joke".


Who's joking?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:16 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Response moderated: Post quoted a response that violated the A2K rules. See more info.

Able2Know is currently phasing out this manner of removing posts that violate the A2K rules. Soon all such posts will simply be pulled again.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:23 pm
Donald Trump's new FBI director pick has Russian ties of his own

Quote:
The most troubling issue that Wray may face is the fact that his law firm — King & Spalding — represents Rosneft and Gazprom, two of Russia’s largest state-controlled oil companies.

Rosneft was prominently mentioned in the now infamous 35-page dossier prepared by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele. The dossier claims that the CEO of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, offered candidate Donald Trump, through Trump’s campaign advisor Carter Page, a 19% stake in the company in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia. The dossier claims that the offer was made in July while Page was in Moscow.

Rosneft is also the company that had a $500 billion oil drilling joint-venture with Exxon in 2012, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO. However, the deal was nixed by President Obama in 2014, when he imposed the sanctions that crippled Russia’s ability to do business with U.S. companies. The lifting of sanctions by the Trump administration would enable Exxon to renew its joint venture agreement with Rosneft, and the law firm of King & Spalding could end up in the middle of the contract negotiations between those two companies.


More at USA TODAY

Swampy stuff.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:29 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Duh...a popular politician was caught lying about his sexual activity.

No. Bill Clinton was caught committing perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice to conceal his sexual activity.


hightor wrote:
Neither the Senate nor the citizenry thought that represented anything perilous; it didn't threaten our system of government.

In other words, they decided that Democrats should be above the law.


hightor wrote:
People might feel differently if Flynn starts talking and we find out that there's something more serious going on. We deal with these matters as they appear.

If people feel that it is OK to convict a president of untrue charges just because that president disagrees with their extremist ideology, those people need to be removed from society.

I recommend incarcerating all the liberals at Guantanamo alongside the terrorists.


hightor wrote:
The fact that Clinton wasn't convicted doesn't give the next guy a free pass.

Oh yes it does. I know the Democrats would like a system where they are above the law but everyone else has to follow the rules. But it's not going to happen.

If we ever have a Republican commit the same crimes that Bill Clinton did, that Republican is going to be just as much above the law as Bill Clinton was.


hightor wrote:
Again, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Senate can arrive at any conclusion it chooses. That's how it's set up in the Constitution.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that forbids outlawing political parties that deliberately abuse the law to harm those who disagree with them.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:31 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
It's not "corruption". Corruption is a thing, whereas "corruptly" is a state of mind, i.e., consciousness of wrongdoing. And I addressed Trump's state of mind in my initial post on this matter.

Trump himself admitted on national television that he made up his mind to fire Comey because of the ongoing FBI investigation of his campaign and Russia's meddling in our election. He wanted to get rid of that cloud hanging over his head ... to hell with the country ... he was only thinking of himself.

Maybe now that Trump's endeavor or attempt to obstruct was unsuccessful, Flynn will come forward and talk. Time will tell.

Trump didn't endeavor or attempt to obstruct.

Flynn will not testify unless the witch hunt offers him immunity.


Debra Law wrote:
Trump was not Comey's boss in any ordinary sense. The FBI is not Trump's business or personal bureau that he can rein in or sic upon anyone according to his own whims.

The Constitution says otherwise.


Debra Law wrote:
If you were an employer in an at-will state, then you have the right to fire an employee for any reason you want except for an unlawful reason. By analogy, the same holds true for Trump and he admitted that he fired Comey because of the bureau's probe into Russia's meddling in our election and his campaign's involvement in that meddling. And remember, the probe had two interrelated facets: the criminal investigation and the intelligence investigation. Comey was reporting to congressional committees that were holding official proceedings on those matters. And Trump fired him!

Good for Trump. It is pretty clear that this Comey character needed to go.


Debra Law wrote:
This matter is not as simple as "giving a good guy a break" as you allege. There's more to it, and to allege otherwise is disingenuous.

The only thing there is to any of this, is Democrats abusing the law to harm people who disagree with them.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:33 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
I think there might be some hail in those storm clouds hanging over Trump's head.

All we need to do is outlaw the Democratic Party and all of their witch hunts will disappear.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:34 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Furthermore, as defined by the Supremes in Morrison versus Olson, 1988, the Director of the FBI is an inferior executive branch officer, and can only be appointed or dismissed with congressional approval.

You've interpreted the decision incorrectly.

I am not familiar with that case, but even if Setanta had interpreted it correctly, it would not change the fact that the president has 100% power over the entire executive branch.

Congress may well be able to create and abolish agencies at will (Congress also controls the purse strings for that matter), but the President is still in command of those agencies for as long as they exist.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:35 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
Your good ole boy's club is hilarious. Pat each other on the back while you diss the woman and try to put her in her place.

If you don't want to be put in your place, stop making fake legal arguments when you don't even understand basic legal principles.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 11 Jun, 2017 05:59 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
House and Senate lawmakers leading the Russia investigation have asked the White House to produce tapes President Trump hinted might exist of a conversation between him and ousted FBI Director James Comey. They also made a formal request to the Comey camp for copies of the memos he testified he made to document the meetings....

At a press conference in the Rose Garden on Friday, the president toyed with reporters vowing to say “in the very near future” if the tapes exist.

If the witch hunt wants to listen to tapes, let's see them convince the Supreme Court that it's any of their business.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.75 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 11:50:47