When commenting on why he dropped the Doral location over flack over the emoluments clause in the constitution, he said the president should be able to run the country without worrying about this crap.

Most of my posts on this board, regardless of what the blue font pontificator Mr. D might suggest, are in fact reactions to events or actions taken by this administration and I guess our POTUS believes some of the constitution is just plain crap.

I guess it’s time to do a re-write.

When commenting on why he dropped the Doral location over flack over the emoluments clause in the constitution, he said the president should be able to run the country without worrying about this crap.

Most of my posts on this board, regardless of what the blue font pontificator Mr. D might suggest, are in fact reactions to events or actions taken by this administration and I guess our POTUS believes some of the constitution is just plain crap.

I guess it’s time to do a re-write.

Regardless of your pontificating spin, I don't think Trump's "this" referred to the Constitution.

So you claim I constantly post things that aren’t true, yet you acknowledge personal take on things might differ, thanks for making my point. What I feel is true and what you feel is true can both be right based on point of view. I still feel in his opinion the clause in the constitution raising such a fuss on both sides was crap, because he wanted his property to host the event and he feels he as president should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. It’s his MO.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you claim I constantly post things that aren’t true, yet you acknowledge personal take on things might differ, thanks for making my point.

No, I didn't say you constantly post things that aren't true. I said you "just say stuff as if saying it made it true." And no, I'm not making your point. You're proving mine. You said that Trump "believes some of the constitution is just plain crap." You just said it, as if it were true, without any evidence that he believes that. He didn't specifically say it. Nor has he ever said it or implied it. You had no evident reason to do so.

What I feel is true and what you feel is true can both be right based on point of view. I still feel in his opinion the clause in the constitution raising such a fuss on both sides was crap, because he wanted his property to host the event and he feels he as president should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. It’s his MO.


You may "feel" that the Clause, in his opinion, was the reason for the fuss, but what evidence do you have that he had that opinion. Was it that because the Clause existed, it in and of itself was crap and that crap was being used to make a fuss about his wanting to host the event on his property, or was it that the Clause was being erroneously used to needlessly stir up the fuss. His legal staff had counseled him re hosting the G7 at Doral, and they didn't think there would be a conflict. Were they right or wrong--that would have been a good question to argue in the courts.

And you're doing it again. You're blatantly just saying his MO is to feel as President he should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. As if you have some authority on how he feels.

No problem Trump is in the clear because the Emoluments Clause isn't real and George Washington had two desks and Obama inked a Netflix deal in 2018.
That’s what he said today in public, though perhaps he was exaggerating.
Just making sure I'm understanding how he feels correctly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No problem Trump is in the clear because the Emoluments Clause isn't real and George Washington had two desks and Obama inked a Netflix deal in 2018.
That’s what he said today in public, though perhaps he was exaggerating.
Just making sure I'm understanding how he feels correctly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh "crap" here we go again. He obviously meant that using the Emoluments Clause in the Doral case was phony, not that the Clause itself is. I mean, come on, it would make no sense to say that something that obviously, without a doubt, irrefutably exists doesn't exist. He obviously knows the Clause exists, he made reference to it (for Pete's sake). You guys refuse to accept Trumpspeak. It's the way he talks. Clipped statements that often skip the rest of the idea.

There isn't universal agreement that the Emoluments Clause means that all businesses of a President must stop while in office. Surprise, surprise--I agree with the following article that the there is an over expansive understanding of the Clause. And that what Trump said (OK, what he meant) is correct. It is an earlier article re another case, but the analysis applies to Doral:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/no-trump-did-not-violate-constitutions-emoluments-clause

In your America the law is kinda, sorta followed because ya know, Trump didn’t really mean that, he meant it’s good, sort of, like.
If you actually listen to him you’ll figure out that what Tillerson said is true.
Not kinda sorta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In your America the law is kinda, sorta followed because ya know, Trump didn’t really mean that, he meant it’s good, sort of, like.
If you actually listen to him you’ll figure out that what Tillerson said is true.
Not kinda sorta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other words, you got nothin'.

In other words, you got nothin'.

Your something is his words don’t mean anything in English, but are in a special language that only his followers can comprehend.
I hear the Stable Genius was on Hannity last night, perhaps you will provide translation services for the linguistically challenged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said you "just say stuff as if saying it made it true."



he pontificates a lot....

Your something is his words don’t mean anything in English, but are in a special language that only his followers can comprehend.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:shocked:

:shocked:

=Trump has spent more taxpayer money at his own resorts than any prior President took in salary in 8 years.

I give him credit for getting up and going to work every day while suffering relentless, mindless attacks from unhinged lunatics everywhere from congress to the mainstream media to the sb political threads daily(or in pete's case...hourly) since the first hours of his presidency......

I give him credit for getting up and watching TV and tweeting every day while suffering relentless, mindless attacks from unhinged lunatics everywhere from congress to the mainstream media to the sb political threads daily(or in pete's case...hourly) since the first hours of his presidency......

Fixed it for you

Why he's getting lynched.....and what is the translation of that?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!
7:52 AM · Oct 22, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

he's an effective multi-takser

I thought he was trying for the black sympathy vote.

You may "feel" that the Clause, in his opinion, was the reason for the fuss, but what evidence do you have that he had that opinion. Was it that because the Clause existed, it in and of itself was crap and that crap was being used to make a fuss about his wanting to host the event on his property, or was it that the Clause was being erroneously used to needlessly stir up the fuss. His legal staff had counseled him re hosting the G7 at Doral, and they didn't think there would be a conflict. Were they right or wrong--that would have been a good question to argue in the courts.

And you're doing it again. You're blatantly just saying his MO is to feel as President he should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. As if you have some authority on how he feels.

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

Earlier on Tuesday, Russian military helicopters landed at the Tabqa airbase after US troops left, criticizing the use of inflammatory rhetoric. (Lynching) is of course seen by the Faithful as suffering relentless, mindless attacks from unhinged lunatics everywhere from congress to the mainstream media to the sb political threads..

COMPLETELY ignoring the person responsible for the headlines.... unless its a conspiracy theory the Right presents ..everything else is a Lie.. its sad to watch how well they play the victims but evryone else are Snowflakes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Earlier on Tuesday, Russian military helicopters landed at the Tabqa airbase after US troops left, criticizing the use of inflammatory rhetoric. (Lynching) is of course seen by the Faithful as suffering relentless, mindless attacks from unhinged lunatics everywhere from congress to the mainstream media to the sb political threads..

COMPLETELY ignoring the person responsible for the headlines.... unless its a conspiracy theory the Right presents ..everything else is a Lie.. its sad to watch how well they play the victims but evryone else are Snowflakes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is nuttier than a trump tweet

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

"no controlling legal authority"

Trump claimed that he turned the Trump organization over to his sons, how is it that now it has become I and my resort?
Must be more of that Trump-speak with its vague and evolving interpretations
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your something is his words don’t mean anything in English, but are in a special language that only his followers can comprehend.
I hear the Stable Genius was on Hannity last night, perhaps you will provide translation services for the linguistically challenged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Further demonstrating that you got nothin'.

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Perhaps you communicate in a sort of Got-Stripers-Speak.

Trump claimed that he turned the Trump organization over to his sons, how is it that now it has become I and my resort?
Must be more of that Trump-speak with its vague and evolving interpretations
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Even more got nothin's.

Even more got nothin's.

🍑
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still nothin'.

We'll see

The DC Circuit court just scheduled arguments in congressional Democrats' emoluments clause case against Trump for Dec. 9. The en banc 4th Circuit is already set to hear arguments in the emoluments case brought by DC/MD later that week, on Dec. 12.

to use a Republican argument If Trump didn't do anything wrong with having the G7 meeting at His resort ... Why did he back out?

he's never cared what Dems or the media has said before

but he seems to care about this GOP lawmakers openly revolting against Trump’s ‘indefensible’ decision to hold G7 at his golf resort


but we know he is just getting picked on:smash:

to use a Republican argument If Trump didn't do anything wrong with having the G7 meeting at His resort ... Why did he back out?

Discretion is the better part of valor

he's never cared what Dems or the media has said before

Well, yeah, he has cared. He always responds. In any event, even if he never did, do you have something against a first time.

but he seems to care about this GOP lawmakers openly revolting against Trump’s ‘indefensible’ decision to hold G7 at his golf resort

I know anti-Trumpers think he is dumb. So you just couldn't conceive of him making a smart move. But it was smart. Not worth the trouble. Small potatoes. But I know for those with TDS every little thing he does is earth shakingly evil and must be investigated.

but we know he is just getting picked on:smash:

Well . . . not "just" . . . and not merely picking.

Can’t even imagine how you see that choice of venues a smart move, but I really think I will find your explanation amusing. The optics alone make it clear to me, he needs some better people advising him, but for his entire term it’s just not his style to listen to experts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can’t even imagine how you see that choice of venues a smart move, but I really think I will find your explanation amusing. The optics alone make it clear to me, he needs some better people advising him, but for his entire term it’s just not his style to listen to experts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain what? Did I say that it was smart to choose Doral? And there you go again just saying stuff--"it's just not his style to listen to experts." From what little evidence there is on that, he always listens. Sometime he agrees. Sometimes he disagrees.

Explain what? Did I say that it was smart to choose Doral? And there you go again just saying stuff--"it's just not his style to listen to experts." From what little evidence there is on that, he always listens. Sometime he agrees. Sometimes he disagrees.
You seemed to think that his lawyers found Doral to be acceptable which I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Given the revolving door on Trump's more credible staff I'd say he doesn't listen to experts much at all, he thinks he's the expert.

I think the point is moot now for a number of reasons but a couple of things would rule out Doral
1. Right next to a major airport, while you might think easy air access is good the airspace over these meetings is restricted to no flights. Just how would that work for Miami airport?
2. Surrounding area population density is too high to have a meeting of the most high value targets in the world, security would cost a fortune
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain what? Did I say that it was smart to choose Doral? And there you go again just saying stuff--"it's just not his style to listen to experts." From what little evidence there is on that, he always listens. Sometime he agrees. Sometimes he disagrees.

Well when diplomats tasked for years to understand the dynamics of Syria and the Middle East were asked if they were consulted prior to the US pull out, the answer was no, what about this pattern do you not understand?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seemed to think that his lawyers found Doral to be acceptable which I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.

I didn't say it was smart. I had read a report re his lawyers. Perhaps it was "fake news." Are you saying that his lawyers didn't? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Or are you "just saying"?


Given the revolving door on Trump's more credible staff I'd say he doesn't listen to experts much at all, he thinks he's the expert.

More just saying stuff? If you say so, it must be true?

Well when diplomats tasked for years to understand the dynamics of Syria and the Middle East were asked if they were consulted prior to the US pull out, the answer was no, what about this pattern do you not understand?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying that means he never listens to his experts?

Do I need to spell it out, it’s his style, flying solo based on his thought process and without any input. OMG could I be any clearer, I thought I only needed pictures for SD.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought he was trying for the black sympathy vote.

Because only blacks were ever lynched. Because the word "lynch" can only be used as a reference to blacks. Because using the word "lynch" will make blacks vote for you--(Actually it would have the opposite effect).

Looked up the word "lynching"--"(of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial." No mention of blacks being a basic or required part of the definition referentially or otherwise. Probably an outmoded definition that is no longer useful in the new age.

I guess the word "lynching" has been redefined by our Progressive language commissars and must join other words with new politically prescribed meaning--such as happened to the word "racist."

Do I need to spell it out, it’s his style, flying solo based on his thought process and without any input. OMG could I be any clearer, I thought I only needed pictures for SD.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, you're being very clear. You're stating your unverified opinion very clearly. And for you, you're saying so makes it true.

Well it’s well reported by People inside the White House he doesn’t trust or rely on intel, briefings or experts; it’s NOT my opinion I’m relaying to you. Do I agree with what I’ve read and has been reported in this regard, absolutely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well it’s well reported by People inside the White House he doesn’t trust or rely on intel, briefings or experts; it’s NOT my opinion I’m relaying to you. Do I agree with what I’ve read and has been reported in this regard, absolutely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's your opinion based on "People". Do these "People" say he never listens? Are they exaggerating? Are they biased? Are they stretching the truth? Is it their overblown opinion? Does he NEVER listen to or trust or rely on intel? Has that been verified?

Well, he has to listen to the intel in order to trust or not trust it. And he has praised various advisers for doing a good job. Does he not trust or listen to Don Jr., Giuliani, Barr, all the various people who worked on his campaigns and rallies and business ventures? That he sometimes disagrees with them doesn't mean he never "listens."

It seems a bit large to say that "it’s just not his style to listen to experts." There are "People" in his campaigns and business who have said he does rely on them. And if he never did, he must obviously be some kind of genius to have gotten as far as he has by just relying on his own opinions. Such a genius should be trusted above all the expert but obviously ignorant advisers that disagreed with him.

I "absolutely" agree with very little that I read or hear. I try to stay away from fully believing, or believing at all, broad unverified opinion. Most of the time, it really doesn't matter. But things like removing a President should require a very high bar of proof, not opinion.

But I get why you would "absolutely" agree with some things that would make Trump look bad.

Because only blacks were ever lynched. Because the word "lynch" can only be used as a reference to blacks. Because using the word "lynch" will make blacks vote for you--(Actually it would have the opposite effect).

Looked up the word "lynching"--"(of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial." No mention of blacks being a basic or required part of the definition referentially or otherwise. Probably an outmoded definition that is no longer useful in the new age.

I guess the word "lynching" has been redefined by our Progressive language commissars and must join other words with new politically prescribed meaning--such as happened to the word "racist."
If you cannot refute something, it must be evil or liberal
That’s a pretty desperate bit of revisionist history
I can easily find a list of over 4000 black people that were lynched
Show me A list of whites, you might find a few but they will be closely tied to preventing a lynching of a black person
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably tomorrow it will be worse than the holocaust, and someone will find a definition to justify it.
In their mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's your opinion based on "People". Do these "People" say he never listens? Are they exaggerating? Are they biased? Are they stretching the truth? Is it their overblown opinion? Does he NEVER listen to or trust or rely on intel? Has that been verified?

Well, he has to listen to the intel in order to trust or not trust it. And he has praised various advisers for doing a good job. Does he not trust or listen to Don Jr., Giuliani, Barr, all the various people who worked on his campaigns and rallies and business ventures? That he sometimes disagrees with them doesn't mean he never "listens."

It seems a bit large to say that "it’s just not his style to listen to experts." There are "People" in his campaigns and business who have said he does rely on them. And if he never did, he must obviously be some kind of genius to have gotten as far as he has by just relying on his own opinions. Such a genius should be trusted above all the expert but obviously ignorant advisers that disagreed with him.

I "absolutely" agree with very little that I read or hear. I try to stay away from fully believing, or believing at all, broad unverified opinion. Most of the time, it really doesn't matter. But things like removing a President should require a very high bar of proof, not opinion.

But I get why you would "absolutely" agree with some things that would make Trump look bad.

Well since they work in the White House and you don’t and more than one very respected person working now or previously have commented on it, I guess I have to choose who to believe. You know none of the them and have no access to them, or the administration. I’m going to go with the consensus of those reports, even though I’m sure it’s just fake news, even those underrated generals and others who couldn’t take it any longer must be all in on this witch hunt.🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you cannot refute something, it must be evil or liberal
That’s a pretty desperate bit of revisionist history
I can easily find a list of over 4000 black people that were lynched
Show me A list of whites, you might find a few but they will be closely tied to preventing a lynching of a black person


Oh, do you have a list of names, dates and places. Or do you just have a number, and who compiled it (Tuskegee Institute?). Wikipedia?

4743 lynched in US between 1882-1968. 3446 of them black 1297 were white. But, apparently your "list" has over 4000 blacks lynched. Interesting. And this doesn't list the number of whites who were lynched in Western states by various vigilantes.

Of course, there is no "list" or verified number of white people lynched at various times or countries in Europe. Several were lynched for various heretical reasons, religious or political or other. The French Reign of Terror did not record the number of lynching's of French dissidents. Southeastern Europe was rampant with various forms of mass killing including impaling and lynching by conflicting powers and factions during the 1000 years after the fall of Rome.

The reasons for all the lynching's have been various. The reasons, in terms of Trumps use of the word are not relevant. The fact is blacks are not the only race to be lynched. And we certainly don't have a clue as to how many Asians were lynched. That could be a huge number considering the long and bitter history of that region.

I don't know what "pretty desperate bit of revisionist history" you're talking about. I didn't bring up history. I didn't revise any. I didn't list numbers. I pointed out the definition of lynching. I pointed out that blacks were not the only ones lynched.

That you, or anyone, automatically ties lynching to that of blacks says more about your bias than about the meaning of the word. That is, the meaning devoid of Progressive political correctness.

And I certainly did not say it was evil or liberal to do so. I pointed out that it was wrong. And it is typical for you to impose the most damaging "interpretation" on Trump's words. It is you that was suggesting something "evil" in using the word "lynching." Which is nonsense.

And I would not accuse Progressives of being "liberal."

And oh, yeah, interesting what-aboutism, Dems used the word "lynching" during the Clinton impeachment.

Well since they work in the White House and you don’t and more than one very respected person working now or previously have commented on it, I guess I have to choose who to believe. You know none of the them and have no access to them, or the administration. I’m going to go with the consensus of those reports, even though I’m sure it’s just fake news, even those underrated generals and others who couldn’t take it any longer must be all in on this witch hunt.🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that was not very responsive to my post, but, as I said, I get why you believe what you want to believe.

Oh, do you have a list of names, dates and places. Or do you just have a number, and who compiled it (Tuskegee Institute?). Wikipedia?

4743 lynched in US between 1882-1968. 3446 of them black 1297 were white. But, apparently your "list" has over 4000 blacks lynched. Interesting. And this doesn't list the number of whites who were lynched in Western states by various vigilantes.

Of course, there is no "list" or verified number of white people lynched at various times or countries in Europe. Several were lynched for various heretical reasons, religious or political or other. The French Reign of Terror did not record the number of lynching's of French dissidents. Southeastern Europe was rampant with various forms of mass killing including impaling and lynching by conflicting powers and factions during the 1000 years after the fall of Rome.

The reasons for all the lynching's have been various. The reasons, in terms of Trumps use of the word are not relevant. The fact is blacks are not the only race to be lynched. And we certainly don't have a clue as to how many Asians were lynched. That could be a huge number considering the long and bitter history of that region.

I don't know what "pretty desperate bit of revisionist history" you're talking about. I didn't bring up history. I didn't revise any. I didn't list numbers. I pointed out the definition of lynching. I pointed out that blacks were not the only ones lynched.

That you, or anyone, automatically ties lynching to that of blacks says more about your bias than about the meaning of the word. That is, the meaning devoid of Progressive political correctness.

And I certainly did not say it was evil or liberal to do so. I pointed out that it was wrong. And it is typical for you to impose the most damaging "interpretation" on Trump's words. It is you that was suggesting something "evil" in using the word "lynching." Which is nonsense.

And I would not accuse Progressives of being "liberal."

And oh, yeah, interesting what-aboutism, Dems used the word "lynching" during the Clinton impeachment.

And tomorrow to Trump will come the holocaust brought by:
Wait, the WHPO said the ambassador who was appointed by Bush and rehired by Pompeo is a far-left radical? Amazing, probably drunk again.

I worry that this clown 🤡 will start a war.
He suggested it would be a viable re-election tactic before for desperate politicians so beware America.
Tweet 1: Nov. 29, 2011, a year before Obama’s re-election, Donald Trump tweeted: “In order to get elected, Barack Obama will start a war with Iran.” (He meant re-elected, translated Trumpspeak for you, though as his disease progresses it has become more difficult)
Tweet 2: Oct. 6, 2012, just a month before Election Day, Donald Trump tweeted: “Now that Obama’s numbers are in a tailspin [obviously wishful Trumpian thinking] watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.”
Tweet 3: Oct. 22, 2012, two weeks pre-election, Trump’s thumbs said: “Don’t let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected – be careful Republicans!”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

America 1st.
You know the rules
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

America 1st.
You know the rules
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here they are

Month ago: “Perfect call!”

2 weeks ago: “No quid pro quo!”

Last week: “No abuse of power!”

Today: “Abuse of power is not a crime!”!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha
Liberal fool
🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.:)

Best one ever too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Best one ever too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Best deal maker evah, look at Syria, Turkey won, Russia won, Iran won, Assad won and Isis won, please explain what we won? Don’t put up a burger, put up what you feel America won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would seem his Administration feels the attack on the constitution is the other way around..

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement: "President Trump has done nothing wrong - this is a co-ordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution..

Again its everyone else's fault
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.:)



can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you......

If you are wondering what the next Trumplican spin is, today is the day the transition from “no quid pro quo” to “yeah quid pro quo, So?” begins in earnest.

Congress votes military aid to Ukraine autumn 2018
Trump promises to release aid by Feb 28 2019
Changes release to May 23
Trump extortion call to Zelensky July 25
Taylor text about "crazy" extortion plot Aug 8
12 Ukrainian soldiers KIA in August
Of course the Ukrainians knew

The Unitary Executive, as put forward by Attorney General Barr, holds that presidential power over executive branch functions can only be limited by the voters at the next election, or by Congress through its impeachment power. This was essentially the position Barr took in his June 8, 2018 memo to the Justice Department. “Thus, under the Framer’s plan, the determination whether the President is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the People, through the election process, and the Congress, through the Impeachment process,” Barr wrote. Although Barr does not say it, a president who acted in an improper or faithless way, but who is reelected or who escapes impeachment, could indeed be above the law. Is this really what the Framers intended?

The Unitary Executive, as put forward by Attorney General Barr, holds that presidential power over executive branch functions can only be limited by the voters at the next election, or by Congress through its impeachment power. This was essentially the position Barr took in his June 8, 2018 memo to the Justice Department. “Thus, under the Framer’s plan, the determination whether the President is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the People, through the election process, and the Congress, through the Impeachment process,” Barr wrote. Although Barr does not say it, a president who acted in an improper or faithless way, but who is reelected or who escapes impeachment, could indeed be above the law. Is this really what the Framers intended?

Above what law are you talking about? A law against improper motives? A law against faithfully discharging his responsibilities? Are there such laws?

The "Framer's plan" to which Barr referred, the Constitution, is the law on how to determine if a President has transgressed his duties. If Congress has determined by impeachment and trial that he hasn't, how is that above the law, above the Constitution? And the people can decide by election if they agree with Congress's decision.

Above what law are you talking about? A law against improper motives? A law against faithfully discharging his responsibilities? Are there such laws?

The "Framer's plan" to which Barr referred, the Constitution, is the law on how to determine if a President has transgressed his duties. If Congress has determined by impeachment and trial that he hasn't, how is that above the law, above the Constitution? And the people can decide by election if they agree with Congress's decision.

The concept of Congressional oversight over the executive branch is a long-established precedent in the United States, a practice that traces back to our British roots. As early as 1792, the House established a special committee to investigate certain executive branch actions, and Madison and four members of the Constitutional Convention voted for the inquiry, indicating they thought this was a core function of the Congress. In a 1927 Supreme Court decision, the Court found that “the power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process [and] that power is broad.” It has often been the Supreme Court that has required presidents who overstep their bounds to comply with Congressional mandates. When Richard Nixon refused to turn over his tapes during the Watergate crisis, the Supreme Court ordered him to do so, leading to his eventual resignation from office.

The Supreme Court has in fact ruled twice on the unitary executive theory, and both times rejected the concept. In Morrison v. Olson, decided in 1988, the Court majority decided that the special counsel statute did not violate the separation of powers. Justice Scalia, alone among the justices, issued a scathing dissent largely along the lines of the theory of the unitary executive. “Morrison shattered the claim that the vesting of ‘the executive power’ in a president under Article II of the Constitution created a hermetic unit free from the checks and balances apart from the community,” MacKenzie wrote in Absolute Power. In 2006, the Supreme Court again issued a stinging rebuke to executive overreach in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that dealt with the use of military commissions to try terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. As Justice Breyer wrote for the majority, “The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a ‘blank check’ to create military commissions,” and told the Bush Administration that they should seek Congressional approval, which they ultimately received.

can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you......

Nice try.

I would never say anything a President does is "Presidential" bc that person is the President. I wouldn't make that stupid statement.

Nice try.

I would never say anything a President does is "Presidential" bc that person is the President. I wouldn't make that stupid statement.

nice dodge....answer the question

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.





can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you......

nice dodge....answer the question

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.





can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you......

If the search function worked here it would be easy to do but I'm not going to waste my time. It is a lot easier to put up a link to showing exactly what Hunter did that is corrupt when you are claiming that then finding what a poster said here (multiple times).

Why didn't you ask him to back up his claim when I originally asked or are you just trying to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& now?

If the search function worked here it would be easy to do but I'm not going to waste my time. It is a lot easier to put up a link to showing exactly what Hunter did that is corrupt when you are claiming that then finding what a poster said here (multiple times).

Why didn't you ask him to back up his claim when I originally asked or are you just trying to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& now?

This is a great answer Paul. You failed to substantiate your claims so Scott is a #^&#^&#^&#^&.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a great answer Paul. You failed to substantiate your claims so Scott is a #^&#^&#^&#^&.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is being a #^&#^&#^&#^& today for asking me to do it only bc he knows I asked someone to post a link recently.

I certainly don't put him in your class of #^&#^&#^&#^&ness as we can see from your most recent round of posts.

..

he still loves me :hihi:

He is being a #^&#^&#^&#^& today for asking me to do it only bc he knows I asked someone to post a link recently.

I certainly don't put him in your class of #^&#^&#^&#^&ness as we can see from your most recent round of posts.

It’s great to have a #^&#^&#^&#^& expert on the board. Congrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he still loves me :hihi:

Some times you can be a little funny.

And tomorrow to Trump will come the holocaust brought by:
Wait, the WHPO said the ambassador who was appointed by Bush and rehired by Pompeo is a far-left radical? Amazing, probably drunk again.

I worry that this clown 🤡 will start a war.
He suggested it would be a viable re-election tactic before for desperate politicians so beware America.
Tweet 1: Nov. 29, 2011, a year before Obama’s re-election, Donald Trump tweeted: “In order to get elected, Barack Obama will start a war with Iran.” (He meant re-elected, translated Trumpspeak for you, though as his disease progresses it has become more difficult)
Tweet 2: Oct. 6, 2012, just a month before Election Day, Donald Trump tweeted: “Now that Obama’s numbers are in a tailspin [obviously wishful Trumpian thinking] watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.”
Tweet 3: Oct. 22, 2012, two weeks pre-election, Trump’s thumbs said: “Don’t let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected – be careful Republicans!”


This rant is supposed to be a reply to my pointing out that Trump did not misuse the word "lynching" and that blacks were not the only ones ever lynched?

It's hard to have a rational conversation with you.

Why does Dangles always swing back to a focus on #^&#^&#^&#^&s? Not sure if it’s just a hobby or an obsession.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The concept of Congressional oversight over the executive branch is a long-established precedent in the United States, a practice that traces back to our British roots. As early as 1792, the House established a special committee to investigate certain executive branch actions, and Madison and four members of the Constitutional Convention voted for the inquiry, indicating they thought this was a core function of the Congress. In a 1927 Supreme Court decision, the Court found that “the power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process [and] that power is broad.” It has often been the Supreme Court that has required presidents who overstep their bounds to comply with Congressional mandates. When Richard Nixon refused to turn over his tapes during the Watergate crisis, the Supreme Court ordered him to do so, leading to his eventual resignation from office.



The Supreme Court has in fact ruled twice on the unitary executive theory, and both times rejected the concept. In Morrison v. Olson, decided in 1988, the Court majority decided that the special counsel statute did not violate the separation of powers. Justice Scalia, alone among the justices, issued a scathing dissent largely along the lines of the theory of the unitary executive. “Morrison shattered the claim that the vesting of ‘the executive power’ in a president under Article II of the Constitution created a hermetic unit free from the checks and balances apart from the community,” MacKenzie wrote in Absolute Power. In 2006, the Supreme Court again issued a stinging rebuke to executive overreach in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that dealt with the use of military commissions to try terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. As Justice Breyer wrote for the majority, “The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a ‘blank check’ to create military commissions,” and told the Bush Administration that they should seek Congressional approval, which they ultimately received.

This is supposed to be an answer to my question if there was "a law against improper motives? A law against faithlesly discharging his responsibilities?" You haven't cited any such law in your response here.

As far as Congressional oversight goes, Congress has the choice to use it. If Congress doesn't invoke it, presumably it has not considered that the President "acted in an improper or faithless way." And Congress represents the will of the people. It is given the seat of power by the vote of the People. And so, yes, as Barr says, if a current Congress does not invoke its oversight in the way the People wish, they can elect an new Congress that will.

Why does Dangles always swing back to a focus on #^&#^&#^&#^&s? Not sure if it’s just a hobby or an obsession.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I understand your curiosity Jeff,be proud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does Dangles always swing back to a focus on #^&#^&#^&#^&s? Not sure if it’s just a hobby or an obsession.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anything beyond a sentence is hard for him, substance isn’t his strong suit, but if you need a juvenile insult he’s your man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is supposed to be an answer to my question if there was "a law against improper motives? A law against faithlesly discharging his responsibilities?" You haven't cited any such law in your response here.

As far as Congressional oversight goes, Congress has the choice to use it. If Congress doesn't invoke it, presumably it has not considered that the President "acted in an improper or faithless way." And Congress represents the will of the people. It is given the seat of power by the vote of the People. And so, yes, as Barr says, if a current Congress does not invoke its oversight in the way the People wish, they can elect an new Congress that will.
Keep snorting it
Trump is toast
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TWELVE of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing the impeachment investigation so they could already get in the SCIF and have been in the depositions already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TWELVE of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing the impeachment investigation so they could already get in the SCIF and have been in the depositions already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was all a show for Trump, media coverage to distract and the base.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TWELVE of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing the impeachment investigation so they could already get in the SCIF and have been in the depositions already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And they have nothing of substance to say about the issue - only about the process.

Supposedly the R's check in the morning and then leave the meetings. The majority of them are not staying to ask questions or listen.