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.

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

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

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

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

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 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

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?

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.

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......

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

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:

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

Some times you can be a little funny.

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

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.

I understand your curiosity Jeff,be proud.
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

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

Was all a show for Trump, media coverage to distract and the base.
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.