The Trump Impeachment Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(22-06-2017 09:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-06-2017 05:48 PM)Dom Wrote:  So Trump says that the tapes he threatened Comey with don't exist, or well, he doesn't have any. But with all the surveillance and unveiling going on, maybe there are tapes.

I know - the 400 pound guy sitting somewhere on his bed has them!Tongue

Doesn't this have implications for Mueller's obstruction of justice investigation? Seems like he just admitted it was a petty veiled threat designed to intimidate Comey. If they can show a pattern of intimidation that amounts to abuse of power, I think that's an impeachable offense.

Well, Comey was just as intimidated as Mattis was, which is to say, ZERO. The Chump made some "requests", which in the business world, are completely understood as "orders". But he still hasn't realized that the gov doesn't work that way, and further, if he tries that, it will just get him further down the rabbit hole. I would really prefer that the polity in the USA was a ton little wiser. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fireball's post
22-06-2017, 11:37 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
I swear it's like he's writing "Springtime for Hitler" with a Watergate theme. "Okay here's we set up the Saturday Night Massacre. But I'm gonna do it on Friday to beat him."

Trump calls Mueller's friendship with Comey "bothersome"

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-06-2017, 11:46 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(22-06-2017 11:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I swear it's like he's writing "Springtime for Hitler" with a Watergate theme. "Okay here's we set up the Saturday Night Massacre. But I'm gonna do it on Friday to beat him."

Trump calls Mueller's friendship with Comey "bothersome"

Ah, Mr Conflict-Of-Interest himself is suddenly worried that someone else may have a conflict of interest? God what a pathetic clown he is. The world is watching, laughing, and trading with China while America implodes.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-06-2017, 07:11 AM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(22-06-2017 10:10 PM)Fireball Wrote:  
(22-06-2017 09:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Doesn't this have implications for Mueller's obstruction of justice investigation? Seems like he just admitted it was a petty veiled threat designed to intimidate Comey. If they can show a pattern of intimidation that amounts to abuse of power, I think that's an impeachable offense.

Well, Comey was just as intimidated as Mattis was, which is to say, ZERO. The Chump made some "requests", which in the business world, are completely understood as "orders". But he still hasn't realized that the gov doesn't work that way, and further, if he tries that, it will just get him further down the rabbit hole. I would really prefer that the polity in the USA was a ton little wiser. Dodgy

Drip, drip......

He asked two heads of agencies to say that the Russia investigation was not bringing results.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 07:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
We need a new Constitutional Amendment.
A President needs to demonstrate he/she can actually count to 9. Facepalm Weeping

“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” said the President in a statement released by the White House. “It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

“My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe,” Trump adds. “Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.”

The vote was 6-3.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-scotus-travel-ban-629181

This is pretty funny. The CBO Office, which trashed the ACA repeal, was appointed by Price. Laugh out load
http://thinkprogress.org/price-belittles...1acebf28bd
Woops.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 08:03 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(26-06-2017 07:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We need a new Constitutional Amendment.
A President needs to demonstrate he/she can actually count to 9. Facepalm Weeping

“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” said the President in a statement released by the White House. “It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

“My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe,” Trump adds. “Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.”

The vote was 6-3.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-scotus-travel-ban-629181

This is pretty funny. The CBO Office, which trashed the ACA, was appointed by Price. Laugh out load
http://thinkprogress.org/price-belittles...1acebf28bd
Woops.

It was a 9-0 decision because it was "per curiam."

3 other justices wrote another opinion in agreement with the other 6 but said they would have let the entire ban stay in effect. Justice Thomas wrote for himself and two others "...agree with the court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would stay them in full."

So all 9 agreed on the partial ban.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 08:13 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
"But as CBS News and several other media outlets have pointed out, the opinion was unsigned, and thus any count involving the court's justices, if there even was one, is unknown."

"Per curiam" doesn't mean unanimous, sir. And three justices couldn't reinstate the whole ban because the others wouldn't let them."

"In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously. In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-06-2017, 08:16 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
The man who lies as often as he opens his mouth, was trying to mislead, yet again.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...-lies.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-06-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(26-06-2017 08:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "But as CBS News and several other media outlets have pointed out, the opinion was unsigned, and thus any count involving the court's justices, if there even was one, is unknown."

"Per curiam" doesn't mean unanimous, sir. And three justices couldn't reinstate the whole ban because the others wouldn't let them."

"In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously. In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed."

6 justices voted to allow most of Trump's order.

3 justices agreed with the other 6 on the partial ban, but said they would have allowed the whole thing as well. The other 3 wrote "agree with the court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed."

6+3=9

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
26-06-2017, 08:45 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 08:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(26-06-2017 08:20 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-06-2017 08:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "But as CBS News and several other media outlets have pointed out, the opinion was unsigned, and thus any count involving the court's justices, if there even was one, is unknown."

"Per curiam" doesn't mean unanimous, sir. And three justices couldn't reinstate the whole ban because the others wouldn't let them."

"In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously. In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed."

6 justices voted to allow most of Trump's order.

3 justices agreed with the other 6 on the partial ban, but said they would have allowed the whole thing as well. The other 3 wrote "agree with the court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed."

6+3=9

So the whole ban was approved then, and it's over. Right.
If they had done anything unanimously, they wouldn't be revisiting it in the fall.
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: