Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

Contempt for not providing what he cannot provide by law? :ols:

 

Or maybe general contempt for him because he's proven himself to be a political hack and a lackey for Donald Trump instead of an independent Attorney General with an ounce of integrity.  That's enough to engender contempt from anybody.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the letter, but is the point of it to say that the office Trump holds is why Mueller himself did not attempt to indict the President for obstruction, or why they think he won't be charged with obstruction period?  Is their legal opinion that the office of President absolves him from obstruction period or just that it is up to congress themselves to move towards impeachment due to Mueller's findings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He certainly would have been charged w/o the powers and duties of being POTUS.

 

The problem is he is and does have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, twa said:

When the President obstructs justice, it's not illegal.

 

Figured I'd clarify exactly what it is that you're shoveling, here.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Figured I'd clarify exactly what it is that you're shoveling, here.  

 

 

There most certainly exists a different standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

There most certainly exists a different standard.

 

Absolutely.  

 

One for Republican politicians, one for Democrat politicians, one for everybody else.  

 

According to you.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Absolutely.  

 

One for Republican politicians, one for Democrat politicians, one for everybody else.  

 

According to you.  

 

 

 

Do you think Obama violated the law with DAPA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Do you think Obama violated the law with DAPA?

 

Try to keep the goalposts in the same stadium, when you move them.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Try to keep the goalposts in the same stadium, when you move them.  

 

 

my posts are pretty steady.

 

Don't care to answer?

 

DAPA was illegal and pretty sure it could be shown Obama knew it.

BUT Executive powers provides cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Do you think Obama violated the law with DAPA?

Is this the thread to discuss Obama?  No.

 

Take that **** elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

my posts are pretty steady.

 

If by "steady" you mean "are 100% guaranteed to value political party over any morality or integrity whatsoever".  

 

But yeah, 

 

1)  Firing the head of the FBI because he failed to agree to your demand that an ongoing counterintelligence investigation will not mention that your subordinates were participating in the crime. 

 

2)  Choosing, as a matter of policy, not to prosecute low level criminals who's crime is failure to voluntarily leave the country they've called home for their entire lives.  

 

aren't different at all.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is this the thread to discuss Obama?  No.

 

Take that **** elsewhere. 

 

I'm discussing Executive powers which are central to the discussion.

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

If by "steady" you mean "are 100% guaranteed to value political party over any morality or integrity whatsoever".  

 

But yeah, 

 

1)  Firing the head of the FBI because he failed to agree to your demand that an ongoing counterintelligence investigation will not mention that your subordinates were participating in the crime. 

 

2)  Choosing, as a matter of policy, not to prosecute low level criminals who's crime is failure to voluntarily leave the country they've called home for their entire lives.  

 

aren't different at all.  

 

 

Can you tell me what SCOTUS said on #2 ?

 

Can you explain why it was not a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I'm discussing Executive powers which are central to the discussion.

 

I must have missed the part where Obama fired the person who was investigating him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

I must have missed the part where Obama fired the person who was investigating him.

 

But he said he was not investigating him. :ols:

 

Perhaps a different example won't trigger ya'll.

 

 

Why isn't congress passing laws found unconstitutional a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, twa said:

Why isn't congress passing laws found unconstitutional a crime?

 

Because congress hasn't passed a law making it a crime. 

 

Same reason message board trolling while pretending to be stupid isn't. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does SCOTUS second guess congress and the executive ?.....or simply fulfill their duties and exercise power invested in them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twa said:

He certainly would have been charged w/o the powers and duties of being POTUS.

 

The problem is he is and does have them.

Well the bigger problem is that one party is corrupt and covering for him and the other party is too ****fied to do what they need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Think the difference is that trump obstructed justice for personal gain...  dapa was a policy decision.  Certainly that is an important difference. 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Think the difference is that trump obstructed justice for personal gain...  dapa was a policy decision.  Certainly that is an important difference. 

 

 can you prove that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

What would you like me to prove?  

 

That Trump obstructed justice for personal gain....keeping in mind Mueller's results.

 

I would say his actions increased scrutiny rather than lessened it, and Mueller would not have occurred w/o them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.