The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

messy said:
True. And Clinton was impeached by idiots. It failed and so would Trump's.
Click to expand...

Given that the Senate has more than enough Republicans to squash any impeachment vote.

If t really cares about the Republican Party, he will resign before defending him becomes an issue in the 2020 Congressional elections. In the 2020 Senate elections, 22 Republican seats are in contest as opposed to 12 Democrats.
 
A couple of weeks back, t said the M Report completely exonerated him. Today he is calling it total bullshit.

Can anybody spell "25th Amendment"? Mr. Pence - it's your turn to act like a patriot.
 
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chili his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

-- Volume II, page 8 of the MR*.
 
messy said:
Robert Mueller's report confirms that Sanders simply made it up when she said that "countless" FBI agents had told her that they were thankful Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey.
Sanders made similar claims multiple times on two different days. Yet she told Mueller's office in an interview that she merely made a "slip of the tongue."


According to Mueller's report, "she also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made 'in the heat of the moment' that was not founded on anything."
Click to expand...
Hanapaa!! I knew you mullets would swallow this hook. bfd!
 
espola said:
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chili his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

-- Volume II, page 8 of the MR*.
Click to expand...
How many votes were colluded?
 
espola said:
From my brother, via FB --

Why Mueller didn't indict Trump for obstruction:

"we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt ***constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.*** "

In other words - here's the evidence on which Trump could be impeached. Or prosecuted after he leaves office. Your choice.
Click to expand...
How many votes people?
 
espola said:
Laugh on, ignoramus --

The House's primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in March 1867, over the President's veto. Specifically, he had removed from office Edwin McMasters Stanton, the Secretary of War—whom the Act was largely designed to protect—and attempted to replace him with Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson​
Click to expand...
Your teachers are laughing at you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top