192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 06:14 pm
@firefly,

Quote:
The last time Melania Trump was seen in public was May 10th.

She had major surgery. You people are desperate. Laughing Laughing Laughing
firefly
 
  4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 06:47 pm
@coldjoint,
It seems more like you aren't concerned about her, or why her tubby hubby says she's doing great, yet she still fails to appear at all even at a White House window.

Curiosity about the First Lady's well- being seems normal given these circumstances.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-stasi-melania-misisng-20180602-story.html
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 08:23 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Monica Lewinski was 21, not a minor and it is not a crime to have an affair in the office even if it is in the Oval office.
According to feminist nutcases, it is a hanging offense for a male superior to have consensual sex with a female subordinate.

Unless the male superior is a liberal. Feminist nutcases say that liberals are above the law.

revelette1 wrote:
In my opinion since it first come up he should have said it wasn't anybody's business and saved us all a lot of trouble.
That wouldn't have passed muster with the judge. In a sexual harassment lawsuit, the sexual behavior of the accused is very much the business of the court.
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 08:26 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The New York Times wrote:
WASHINGTON -- President Trump's lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify
Trump has the same Fifth Amendment rights that everyone else does.

The New York Times wrote:
and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter -- sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times -- contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia's election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, "if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon."
"Brash" for him to assert that he has the normal constitutional powers of the presidency?

The New York Times wrote:
Mr. Trump's broad interpretation of executive authority is novel
No it isn't. That has been the clear meaning of the Constitution for the past 230 years.

The only thing that is novel is the liberals' weird claim that he doesn't have these powers.

The New York Times wrote:
and is likely to be tested if a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to answer questions. It is unclear how that fight, should the case reach that point, would play out. A spokesman for Mr. Mueller declined to comment.

"We don't know what the law is on the intersection between the obstruction statutes and the president exercising his constitutional power to supervise an investigation in the Justice Department," said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. "It's an open question."
I predict that the Supreme Court will ignore the liberal gibberish and will issue a straightforward ruling in favor of the Constitution.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 08:28 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:
Do you find it frustrating that you're forced to choose between news that supports Trump and news that opposes him? Is there really not a space for no narrative, non-editorialized news where they just say, "Hey, here's all the **** that happened today, and here's the transcripts."?
Try PBS News.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 08:29 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
I am pretty sure it was consensual, I mean, she flashed the straps of her thong underwear to him and that is when the first encounter took place soon after in Oval office. A pretty big come hither on Lewinsky's part. I am not aware of her saying she tried to deny him or anything else, nor did she ever say there was any sexual harassment involved; nor was there any charges made of sexual harassment between Lewinsky and Clinton.
It was still a crime for Bill Clinton to commit all those felonies to cover up the affair.

revelette1 wrote:
They only charged him with lying at his grand jury.
Perjury before the civil trial and perjury before the grand jury.

There was clear evidence of witness tampering and obstruction of justice too. Real obstruction of justice, not an imaginary version of the law like in the accusations against Trump.

revelette1 wrote:
he should have just admitted to the affair and that would have been the end of it.
True. But instead he chose to commit a bunch of felonies.
revelette1
 
  4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 08:48 pm
@oralloy,
He was never charged with a felony. He cited for contempt of court of the Paula Jones and impeached for lying over a sexual matter. He gave up his license, settled with Paula Jones and it really is the end of the story. My only point with all this was simply to respond to your post a way back when you made out like it was unconstitutional for Presidents to be investigated. It is not.

I am done with this. It is simply a waste of time for no reason.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 10:33 pm
@oralloy,
Trump et al are being investigated not because of their opinions but because of their actions, which is perfectly constitutional, as revelette points out. Donald Trump is not above the law, even though he thinks it doesn't apply to him.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 10:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Trump is not above the law, even though he thinks it doesn't apply to him.

Funny how you accuse Trump of exactly what people who have proven to be above the law are doing. It becomes clearer everyday.
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 10:50 pm
Quote:
President Trump will host a dinner in the coming week in honor of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, restoring a White House tradition that he had abandoned during his first year in office, a West Wing official said on Saturday.

The dinner is expected to be held on Wednesday. The guest list was not made available.
[...]
The dinner, which was reported earlier by Politico, will revive a tradition that Republican and Democratic presidents have carried out for years during Ramadan, when Muslims fast during the daylight hours. A meal called an iftar breaks the fast.

Eid al-Fitr, the festival that signifies the end of Ramadan, is expected to begin Thursday evening.
NYT
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 10:52 pm
@coldjoint,
Whatever you think you're talking about is far from clear, but on the face of it it is nonsense.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 11:01 pm
@oralloy,
Trump theoretically may have the power to stop any investigation, BUT exercising that power in and of itself constitutes obstruction of justice here... If he does it, he's guilty. Actions have consequences.
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 11:03 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Whatever you think you're talking about is far from clear, but on the face of it it is nonsense.
He was pointing out that you are falsely accusing Donald Trump of what Bill Clinton actually did.

And he is correct. That is what you are doing.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 11:06 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Trump theoretically may have the power to stop any investigation, BUT exercising that power in and of itself constitutes obstruction of justice here... If he does it, he's guilty.
That is incorrect. Obstruction is about interfering with an investigation that the government is trying to pursue. It isn't about the government deciding to stop pursuing an investigation.

MontereyJack wrote:
Actions have consequences.
Not anymore. Since the Democrats said it was OK for Bill Clinton to obstruct justice, it is now OK for Republican presidents to obstruct justice too.

Although thus far no Republican president has done so.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jun, 2018 11:08 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
What's on the menu, roast pork?
 

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 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2024 at 04:09:40