Donald is here to stay, now what? Cursing and swearing OK

[Animavore]

Your scumbag President.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/opin ... d=fb-share

[Tero]

(They mean folding chairs)
White House Lawn Chairs Loving Trump’s Presidency “We’ve never had it so easy!”
http://www.breakingburgh.com/white-hous ... ever-easy/

[Brian Peacock]

Not yet. When Trump fires Muller, then.

If Ferris Mueller says 'Logan Act' then he's fired.

Obama is in Paris right now violating the Logan act meeting with the French President.......

Is Obama negotiating on behalf of the administration or government? Eh? Eh?

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

How close to a Watergate situation are we getting?

Not at all. Nobody is alleging Trump did anything wrong. When they do, we can evaluate the allegation.

[Forty Two]

News flash: Piece of shit acts like piece of shit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... stigation/

A single question under-oath will undo him now. "Did you ask director Comey to go easy on Micheal Flynn, who you said was a decent guy?"

Well, I don't think that question, if answered "yes," would be a crime, would it? It would be political fodder for his opponents. But, the chief law enforcement officer at the federal level is the President, and the FBI reports to the DOJ who reports to their boss, the President. There's nothing wrong with being of the opinion that Flynn is a decent guy, and criticism of a request to "go easy" on someone would depend on the full context. Was it a question? Was it part of an overall inquiry into the investigation, and in connection with the President's favorable view of Flynn? Was it an order? All depends on the details and facts.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Support for the idea of the imperial presidency--justice apparently is whatever Donald fucking Trump says it is.

'Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"'

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

• Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."

Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.

[Tyrannical]

Support for the idea of the imperial presidency--justice apparently is whatever Donald fucking Trump says it is.

'Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"'

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

• Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."

Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.

I follow this but..... There is no Russian collusion except by Hillary Clinton trying to make $$$.

[Joe]

Support for the idea of the imperial presidency--justice apparently is whatever Donald fucking Trump says it is.

'Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"'

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

• Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."

Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

"It's like deja-vu, all over again." - Yogi Berra

[Tyrannical]

Support for the idea of the imperial presidency--justice apparently is whatever Donald fucking Trump says it is.

'Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"'

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

• Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."

Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

"It's like deja-vu, all over again." - Yogi Berra

Lol, welcome cute doggy!

[Tero]

Trump not able to kill the 3 million that voted for Hillary over him.
Only 30 000 will die before 2020 election
Economist Larry Summers: 10,000 people will die annually from GOP tax bill
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/36 ... p-tax-bill

[Brian Peacock]

News flash: Piece of shit acts like piece of shit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... stigation/

A single question under-oath will undo him now. "Did you ask director Comey to go easy on Micheal Flynn, who you said was a decent guy?"

Well, I don't think that question, if answered "yes," would be a crime, would it? It would be political fodder for his opponents. But, the chief law enforcement officer at the federal level is the President, and the FBI reports to the DOJ who reports to their boss, the President. There's nothing wrong with being of the opinion that Flynn is a decent guy, and criticism of a request to "go easy" on someone would depend on the full context. Was it a question? Was it part of an overall inquiry into the investigation, and in connection with the President's favorable view of Flynn? Was it an order? All depends on the details and facts.

We have Comey's under-oath testimony about the nature of the President's remarks - that's the context surely? OK, the President is 'the chief law enforcement officer at the federal level' but does that mean he has the power to decide who should be or is investigated, and to what extent - should 'law enforcement at the federal level' be subject to the will of the President?

[L'Emmerdeur]

[Tero]

Elsewhere:
I think it was Colbert who pointed out how abnormal things are now: Normally, it's the President who ages rapidly in office.

[Tero]

Trump lawyer says a president can't 'obstruct justice.' Can that be true?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/ ... index.html

In the early 1970s, Nixon was involved in the cover-up of a June 1972 break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. His denials of any wrongdoing dramatically undercut when White House tapes of related conversations were discovered. Nixon resigned in August 1974, shortly after the US Supreme Court ruled he had to turn over the tapes to a special prosecutor.
Later in 1977, in a series of interviews with journalist David Frost, he remarked that when "the president does it, that means it is not illegal." The comment, addressing national security and broader presidential power, has been one of the most startling and enduring from those televised interviews.
During Watergate, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that criminal prosecution of a sitting president would undermine the executive's duty to carry out his constitutional duties. In 2000, the office reiterated that 1973 position that the Constitution forbids the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
Still, lawyers then and now say the real answer would rest with the courts, and some lawyers argue that since the Constitution does not address the question, the US Supreme Court could ultimately find that the president was not above prosecution.
Nixon's threatened impeachment, as well as President Bill Clinton's actual impeachment in 1998, both began with reports from special prosecutors in roles such as Mueller's. Obstruction-of-justice charges were leveled in both cases.
In the Clinton ordeal, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment in December 1998 related to obstruction of justice and perjury. The Senate acquitted Clinton in February 1999 after the chamber fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. The only other US president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868, was similarly not convicted by the Senate.
So far Mueller has charged Flynn and three other individuals from the Trump campaign with crimes -- former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy on the campaign Rick Gates were indicted (both have pleaded not guilty), and a plea deal was reached with former adviser George Papadopoulos.
It is not known whether Mueller is building a case against the president and whether he would be inclined to put it before a criminal court rather than the House of Representatives.
Obstruction of justice, which Trump lawyer Dowd mentioned, is a federal offense that arises when someone tries to "influence, obstruct, or impede" the "due administration of justice." A key question is whether the President or any defendant acted with a corrupt intent.
Much of the criticism of Trump's actions related to the Russia probe go back to February when Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation and then fired him.
Whether that or any of the President's other actions would offer sufficient grounds for an obstruction-of-justice conviction could rest with a court, or it may turn out, only with the two chambers of Congress

ess.