|
Robert Mueller Sends a Message: He’s Deadly Serious
|
|
Topic Started: Oct 28 2017, 03:37 PM (528 Views)
|
|
George Aligator
|
Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:36 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:22 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:13 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 05:44 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Your childish response implying that there is some lack of consensus among "Constitutional lawyers" about obstruction of justice shows how ignorant you are about the matter. Obstruction of justice is a criminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means. As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection bWhat lawyers and jurors may disagree on is the application of the above law to the facts of a specific case. You ought to stop pretending you know anything about the law and stick to repeating Fox News talking points. You look pathetic.
Its a constitutional issue because of the separation of powers, george Egg on your face
No, the separation of powers deals with the relationship between constitutional offices, it does not define criminal acts. The separation issue has been cited in the argument that the President cannot be criminally indicted while in office. That he cannot be indicted is not the same as saying he cannot commit a crime.* The evidence of obstruction of justice alleged by the President is presented to the Congress, not the courts. If convicted, the president is removed from office, not subjected to criminal penalty. But the res delicto remains untouched. The president can commit a crime but how the act is handled is different from what happens when you do. *this distinction is relevant in the Trump Russia issue because although Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted, people acting in collusion with him or under his direction can be criminally prosecuted as part of criminal conspiracy.
Trump has every right as POTUS and defined by the separation of powers to fire his subordinates - for any reason he wants. There is consensus supporting my position - all you have is a mob of leftist crybabies on a witchhunt. You are basing this on your theory that a crime took place. No crime took place. You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you.
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:36 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:22 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:13 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection b
What lawyers and jurors may disagree on is the application of the above law to the facts of a specific case. You ought to stop pretending you know anything about the law and stick to repeating Fox News talking points. You look pathetic.
Its a constitutional issue because of the separation of powers, george Egg on your face
No, the separation of powers deals with the relationship between constitutional offices, it does not define criminal acts. The separation issue has been cited in the argument that the President cannot be criminally indicted while in office. That he cannot be indicted is not the same as saying he cannot commit a crime.* The evidence of obstruction of justice alleged by the President is presented to the Congress, not the courts. If convicted, the president is removed from office, not subjected to criminal penalty. But the res delicto remains untouched. The president can commit a crime but how the act is handled is different from what happens when you do. *this distinction is relevant in the Trump Russia issue because although Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted, people acting in collusion with him or under his direction can be criminally prosecuted as part of criminal conspiracy.
Trump has every right as POTUS and defined by the separation of powers to fire his subordinates - for any reason he wants. There is consensus supporting my position - all you have is a mob of leftist crybabies on a witchhunt. You are basing this on your theory that a crime took place. No crime took place.
You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you. The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go.
yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Oct 29 2017, 11:44 PM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,160
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 03:38 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 28 2017, 06:48 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 28 2017, 05:44 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 28 2017, 03:56 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 28 2017, 03:37 PM
On Friday night, CNN reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., has approved the first charges arising from the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government. Citing “sources briefed on the matter,” the network said that a judge had ordered the charges kept under seal, but that at least one arrest could take place as early as Monday. Details were scant. The CNN report didn’t specify what the charges were or whom they had been brought against. But the news created an immediate furor, as other news organizations sought to follow up the story, and people on television and social media began speculating about the nature of the charges. Shortly before midnight, the Wall Street Journal confirmed CNN’s scoop, without providing any additional details. What isn’t speculation is the fact that, five months into his investigation, Mueller has brought a first set of criminal charges. By the standards of recent special prosecutors, that is fast work, and it confirms Mueller’s reputation as someone who doesn’t like to dally. Now that he has started arresting people, there is no reason to suppose he will stop. And that is precisely the message he wants to send. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/robert-mueller-sends-a-message-hes-deadly-serious?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20(54)&CNDID=29031916&spMailingID=12241737&spUserID=MTMzMTgyOTU2NjcxS0&spJobID=1262480559&spReportId=MTI2MjQ4MDU1OQS2
The first sentence is a lie. Mueller is investigating possible interference into the 2016 election, not specifically Trump.
You use the word "lie" rather loosely. Dangerous where I come from. Stupid as well because the first sentence references, "collusion between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government." That is not a statement about "specifically Trump" (meaning the President personally) and it is an accurate description of the law passed to create the Special Investigator. The days when screaming denial accentuated in purple were treated with bemused tolerance are coming to close as the matter begins its long journey through the courts. You will have no option but to grow up or to shut up. Take your choice.
That would also be a lie. As was revealed this week - the Podesta brothers are also part of the investigation and last I checked - the Podestas were one step away from the Clinton campaign, not Trump. We have no idea who is going to be indicted Monday - my bets are on Manafort but it could be some IT guy working for the democrats in Pakistan. The people saying that it will be Trump are deeply misinformed and ignorant of the statutes - I believe Trump would need to be impeached prior to being indicted. nevertheless .... The investigation encompasses ALL interference in the 2016 election - by both parties with a special focus on Russia. This is why we call CNN fake news - George.
CNN isn't news, it's a TV network. "Fake news" is what you junior fascists call anything that makes you uncomfortable. I'll tell you this though: Trump will be impeached long before Hillary Clinton will. Think it over. However the Reign of Terror that liberals started will eventually lead to the execution of Hillary and other Jacobites..............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:36 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:22 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection b
No, the separation of powers deals with the relationship between constitutional offices, it does not define criminal acts. The separation issue has been cited in the argument that the President cannot be criminally indicted while in office. That he cannot be indicted is not the same as saying he cannot commit a crime.* The evidence of obstruction of justice alleged by the President is presented to the Congress, not the courts. If convicted, the president is removed from office, not subjected to criminal penalty. But the res delicto remains untouched. The president can commit a crime but how the act is handled is different from what happens when you do. *this distinction is relevant in the Trump Russia issue because although Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted, people acting in collusion with him or under his direction can be criminally prosecuted as part of criminal conspiracy.
Trump has every right as POTUS and defined by the separation of powers to fire his subordinates - for any reason he wants. There is consensus supporting my position - all you have is a mob of leftist crybabies on a witchhunt. You are basing this on your theory that a crime took place. No crime took place.
You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you.
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go. yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you?
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
14Veritas
|
Nov 2 2017, 05:52 PM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 440
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
My hat off to you Sir, you are a patient man. Sometimes the inmates here get a little trollish!
yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you?[/quote]
|
|
If there is nothing to hide then why all the lies?
|
| |
|
14Veritas
|
Nov 2 2017, 05:56 PM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 440
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:36 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection bres delicto remains untouched. The president can commit a crime but how the act is handled is different from what happens when you do.
*this distinction is relevant in the Trump Russia issue because although Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted, people acting in collusion with him or under his direction can be criminally prosecuted as part of criminal conspiracy.
Trump has every right as POTUS and defined by the separation of powers to fire his subordinates - for any reason he wants. There is consensus supporting my position - all you have is a mob of leftist crybabies on a witchhunt. You are basing this on your theory that a crime took place. No crime took place.
You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you.
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go. yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS
I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you? I don't know what happened there. My comment...
My hat off to you Sir, you are a patient man. Sometimes the inmates here get a little trollish!
|
|
If there is nothing to hide then why all the lies?
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Nov 2 2017, 06:48 PM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Oct 28 2017, 05:44 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 28 2017, 03:56 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 28 2017, 03:37 PM
On Friday night, CNN reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., has approved the first charges arising from the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government. Citing “sources briefed on the matter,” the network said that a judge had ordered the charges kept under seal, but that at least one arrest could take place as early as Monday. Details were scant. The CNN report didn’t specify what the charges were or whom they had been brought against. But the news created an immediate furor, as other news organizations sought to follow up the story, and people on television and social media began speculating about the nature of the charges. Shortly before midnight, the Wall Street Journal confirmed CNN’s scoop, without providing any additional details. What isn’t speculation is the fact that, five months into his investigation, Mueller has brought a first set of criminal charges. By the standards of recent special prosecutors, that is fast work, and it confirms Mueller’s reputation as someone who doesn’t like to dally. Now that he has started arresting people, there is no reason to suppose he will stop. And that is precisely the message he wants to send. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/robert-mueller-sends-a-message-hes-deadly-serious?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20(54)&CNDID=29031916&spMailingID=12241737&spUserID=MTMzMTgyOTU2NjcxS0&spJobID=1262480559&spReportId=MTI2MjQ4MDU1OQS2
The first sentence is a lie. Mueller is investigating possible interference into the 2016 election, not specifically Trump.
You use the word "lie" rather loosely. Dangerous where I come from. Stupid as well because the first sentence references, "collusion between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government." That is not a statement about "specifically Trump" (meaning the President personally) and it is an accurate description of the law passed to create the Special Investigator. The days when screaming denial accentuated in purple were treated with bemused tolerance are coming to close as the matter begins its long journey through the courts. You will have no option but to grow up or to shut up. Take your choice. but among the charges there was not a single one concerning either collusion with Russia or Russia at all  What is this commitee's mandate if it does some other business but not what it is supposed to do? Who is responsible for such a waste of money of US taxpayers?
Edited by Siberian, Nov 2 2017, 06:55 PM.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Nov 2 2017, 06:52 PM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted. lol, but in reality it turned out that Mueller being authorised to investigate Russia's intervention threw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is something to see here... while not a single charge was concerning what he was meant to adress...
Edited by Siberian, Nov 2 2017, 06:54 PM.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Nov 3 2017, 12:12 AM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 06:36 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection bres delicto remains untouched. The president can commit a crime but how the act is handled is different from what happens when you do.
*this distinction is relevant in the Trump Russia issue because although Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted, people acting in collusion with him or under his direction can be criminally prosecuted as part of criminal conspiracy.
Trump has every right as POTUS and defined by the separation of powers to fire his subordinates - for any reason he wants. There is consensus supporting my position - all you have is a mob of leftist crybabies on a witchhunt. You are basing this on your theory that a crime took place. No crime took place.
You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you.
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go. yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS
I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you? The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago.
Seriously man - you are so fecking desperate, I pray for your mental health in the coming months.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Nov 3 2017, 12:14 AM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- 14Veritas
- Nov 2 2017, 05:56 PM
- George Aligator
- Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection bres delicto
You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you.
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go. yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS
I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you?
I don't know what happened there. My comment... My hat off to you Sir, you are a patient man. Sometimes the inmates here get a little trollish! > showing an anti-Trump fanatic that using a law repealed centuries ago to impeach Trump is retarded
"troll"
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Nov 3 2017, 12:16 AM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,160
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Nov 3 2017, 12:12 AM
- George Aligator
- Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 06:59 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection bres delicto
You are apparently unaware of the various laws concerning the president's authority over DoJ. Violation of one of those laws would be grounds for impeachment -- that was the case against the 17th president and Tenure in Office Act. And you are simply wrong that the president can fire anyone for any reason. At the other end of the stick, Congress can impeach the president for any reason that it finds sufficient. Perhaps they don't like his hair-do. If the house impeaches and the Senate convicts, he's gone. I'm afraid that you not only don't know the law, you don't want to know. I'm through trying to teach you.
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go. yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS
I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you?
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago. Seriously man - you are so fecking desperate, I pray for your mental health in the coming months. You don't understand how old Aligator is..........
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
The Inquisitor
|
Nov 3 2017, 12:58 AM
Post #32
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,754
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
- Robert Stout
- Nov 3 2017, 12:16 AM
- estonianman
- Nov 3 2017, 12:12 AM
- George Aligator
- Nov 2 2017, 05:30 PM
- estonianman
- Oct 29 2017, 08:09 PM
- George Aligator
- Oct 29 2017, 07:50 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcriminal, not a constitutional matter. You didn't know that and you don't know what the difference means.
As a criminal matter, the definition is clear in federal codes and nobody disagrees with what the law is. Since you clearly have no idea, I'll give you the relevant first portion:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection bres delicto
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago - and Comey wasn't fired for political reasons, he was incompetent and needed to go. yes - anyone in the executive branch can be fired, micromanaged, whatever by the POTUS
I'll try to dumb this ^^^ down for you. The Tenure in Office Act was a law passed by Congress limiting the power of the President to fire certain members of the executive branch. TAKEAWAY: Congress has the power to control presidential firings. Johnson violated the act and was impeached but not convicted. TAKEAWAY violating a law regulating firings by the president is an impeachable offense. Still don't get it, do you?
The Tenure in Office act was repealed over 100 years ago. Seriously man - you are so fecking desperate, I pray for your mental health in the coming months.
You don't understand how old Aligator is.......... When referring to Aligator's posts should the word "desperate" be "hopeless"....
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
|
clone
|
Nov 20 2017, 09:58 PM
Post #33
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted. Speaking of gorilla dust....
[twitter=DanaBoos3/status/932715535019708416]
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Nov 20 2017, 10:00 PM
Post #34
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- clone
- Nov 20 2017, 09:58 PM
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted.
Speaking of gorilla dust.... [twitter=DanaBoos3/status/932715535019708416] That's absolutely fine. All I want is Mueller to follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
| |
|
peewee
|
Nov 20 2017, 10:36 PM
Post #35
|
|
- Posts:
- 6,937
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #218
- Joined:
- May 29, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted. Including Hillary Clinton. You have been warned.
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Nov 20 2017, 11:52 PM
Post #36
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- peewee
- Nov 20 2017, 10:36 PM
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted.
Including Hillary Clinton. You have been warned. If the evidence supports it, fine. But frankly, the Republican record on actually being to find this evidence they claim absolutely damns her has been pretty piss poor. You haven't managed it in 30 years, I doubt you're going to turn that around any time soon.
|
|
|
| |
|
The Inquisitor
|
Nov 21 2017, 12:03 AM
Post #37
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,754
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
- Opinionated
- Nov 20 2017, 11:52 PM
- peewee
- Nov 20 2017, 10:36 PM
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted.
Including Hillary Clinton. You have been warned.
If the evidence supports it, fine. But frankly, the Republican record on actually being to find this evidence they claim absolutely damns her has been pretty piss poor. You haven't managed it in 30 years, I doubt you're going to turn that around any time soon. "If the evidence supports it, fine."Reminder.... True to form.... ....your already denying something before it may happen....
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Nov 21 2017, 11:26 AM
Post #38
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,359
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Nov 20 2017, 10:00 PM
- clone
- Nov 20 2017, 09:58 PM
- Opinionated
- Oct 29 2017, 12:21 AM
We can know two things with pretty much absolute certainty. The first is that the Trump administration is going to throw a mountain of gorilla dust in the air in an effort to convince everyone that there is nothing to see here. And the second is that Robert Mueller, much like the Terminator, isn't going to be dissuaded. And he will not stop until everyone who warrants prosecution, is prosecuted.
Speaking of gorilla dust.... [twitter=DanaBoos3/status/932715535019708416]
That's absolutely fine. All I want is Mueller to follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You will get your wish.
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
70-101
|
Nov 21 2017, 11:38 AM
Post #39
|
|
- Posts:
- 6,668
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #6
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Muellers got white-collar IRS tax experts going over Trump's taxes with a fine tooth comb - who knew being a president could be so tough? Not to worry, Trump won't be our so-called president much longer.
|
|
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Nov 21 2017, 12:43 PM
Post #40
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Mueller is apparently chasing up the chain of command on that phony letter which Trump said was the reason he had to fire Comey but then contradicted himself on national TV the next day, saying it was necessary because of Comey's investigation, not ineptitude. Trump and the other two bozos who hatched the plot to send the Prez a letter ordering him to do what he wanted to do anyway but giving a more politically acceptable rationale is exhibit #1 in the obstruction of justice indictment. Reminds me of a famous "unindicted co-conspirator" back in the old days. He got the boot as I recall...
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|