Page 110 of 238 FirstFirst ... 1060100106107108109110111112113114120160210 ... LastLast
Results 1,636 to 1,650 of 3570
Like Tree11582Likes

Thread: The Manchurine candidate - Trump rule past 100 days

  1. #1636
    Elite Member HWBL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,344

    Default

    Just imagine how much taxpayer's money has been waisted these past 6 months, just in dealing with these vile, corrupt, idiots! If and when they are finally (hopefully) sentenced by a court, they should also be ordered to pay back all the money they've cost the nation. How can such a relatively small group of "people" cause so much damage in such a short time? Infuckingcredible.
    Warren Beatty: actor, director, writer, producer.

    ***** celeb

  2. #1637
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Trump is playing golf near my office now. Too bad for him, a violent storm is rolling through the area right now.
    Brookie likes this.

  3. #1638
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    9,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShimmeringGlow View Post
    Trump is playing golf near my office now. Too bad for him, a violent storm is rolling through the area right now.
    Let's hope for a Caddyshack-style lightning storm to get him.

  4. #1639
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    59,827

    Default

    eh, they'll just pull a Weekend at Bernie's if it does
    "But I am very poorly today & very stupid & I hate everybody & everything." -- Charles Darwin

  5. #1640
    Elite Member HWBL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,344

    Default

    Source: NY Times


    Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes

    By CHARLIE SAVAGEJULY 22, 2017




    President Trump in the Oval Office on Friday. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times WASHINGTON — A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted?


    The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
    “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”


    Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows.



    Other prosecutors working for Mr. Starr developed a draft indictment of Mr. Clinton, which The Times has also requested be made public. The National Archives has not processed that file to determine whether it is exempt from disclosure under grand-jury secrecy rules.
    OPEN Document

    In 1974, the Watergate special counsel, Leon Jaworski, had also received a memo from his staff saying he could indict the president, in that instance Richard M. Nixon, while he was in office, and later made that case in a court brief. Those documents, however, explore the topic significantly less extensively than the Starr office memo.


    In the end, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to indict the presidents while they remained in office. Mr. Starr, who had decided he could indict Mr. Clinton, said in a recent interview that he had concluded the more prudent and appropriate course was simply referring the matter to Congress for potential impeachment.


    As Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the latest inquiry, investigates the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia and whether President Trump obstructed justice, the newly unearthed Starr office memo raises the possibility that Mr. Mueller may have more options than most commentators have assumed. Here is an explanation of the debate and what the Starr office memo has to say.
    Why do some argue presidents are immune?

    Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution, and no court has ruled that they have any such shield. But proponents of the theory that Mr. Trump is nevertheless immune for now from indictment cited the Constitution’s “structural principles,” in the words of a memo written in September 1973 by Robert G. Dixon Jr., then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.


    This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, preventing the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” Mr. Dixon wrote.


    In October 1973, Mr. Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork, submitted a court brief that similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial. And in 2000, Randolph D. Moss, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Clinton, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusion.
    Kenneth W. Starr after testifying before the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing for President Bill Clinton in November 1998. Credit Joe Marquette/Associated Press What was the Starr office’s stance?

    In laying out his case, Mr. Rotunda played down arguments that permitting a president to be indicted would cripple the executive branch. Instead, he placed greater emphasis on immunity issues that the Nixon — and, later, Clinton — legal teams dismissed.

    Among them, he noted that the Constitution’s speech-or-debate clause explicitly grants limited immunity to lawmakers for certain actions. “If the framers of our Constitution wanted to create a special immunity for the president,” he argued, “they could have written the relevant clause.”



    He also wrote that the 25th Amendment, which allows for temporary replacement of a president who has become unable to carry out the duties of the office, created a mechanism that would keep the executive branch from becoming incapacitated if the president was on trial.And he noted that if indictments had to wait until a president’s term was up, some crimes would become untriable — such as those where the statute of limitations had run out. That could happen for crimes that do not rise to an impeachable offense, he wrote, citing the example of a president who punches an irritating heckler.


    “No one would suggest that the president should be removed from office simply because of that assault,” he wrote. “Yet the president has no right to assault hecklers. If there is no recourse against the president, if he cannot be prosecuted for violating the criminal laws, he will be above the law.”
    What has the Supreme Court said?

    The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted and tried. But in a landmark 1997 ruling, Clinton v. Jones, it permitted a lawsuit against Mr. Clinton for unofficial actions — accusations of misconduct before he became president — to proceed while he was in office.
    In his 2000 memo, Mr. Moss dismissed this ruling, emphasizing that the burdens of being a criminal defendant were greater than the burdens of being sued by a private litigant. But in the Starr office memo, Mr. Rotunda deemed the ruling far more significant for the criminal question.


    “If public policy and the Constitution allow a private litigant to sue a sitting president for acts that are not part of the president’s official duties (and are outside the outer perimeter of those duties), and that is what Clinton v. Jones squarely held,” he wrote, “then one would think that an indictment is constitutional because the public interest in criminal cases is greater.”
    Could Mueller go where no prosecutor has before?

    Even if Mr. Mueller were to uncover sufficient evidence to indict Mr. Trump, decide that the legal arguments in the Starr office memo were correct and conclude that he wanted to ask a grand jury for an indictment while Mr. Trump is president — all big ifs — yet another uncertainty would loom: whether he must accept the Office of Legal Counsel’s analysis, even if he disagreed with it.


    The Justice Department’s regulations give Mr. Mueller, as a special counsel, greater autonomy than an ordinary prosecutor, but still say he must follow its “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies.” They also permit Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to overrule Mr. Mueller if he tries to take a step that Mr. Rosenstein deems contrary to such practices.


    There is no guiding precedent about whether Office of Legal Counsel memos would fall into that category, or if a special counsel is free to reach his own legal judgments. But as Mr. Mueller’s office investigates, the ambiguity about the rules could influence calculations in the Trump camp about how much to cooperate and how much to fight, said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor turned defense lawyer.


    “I would be surprised if Mueller indicted the president for the same prudential reasons that swayed Starr,” Mr. Mariotti said. “But the specter that he might do that could have an impact on things. If I were on the president’s team, I would say, ‘I don’t think it’s likely that he would, but it’s possible,’ depending on what the facts are.”

    lindsaywhit likes this.
    Warren Beatty: actor, director, writer, producer.

    ***** celeb

  6. #1641
    Elite Member HWBL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,344

    Default

    Source: The Hill

    House to vote on Russia sanctions deal next week

    By Cristina Marcos - 07/22/17 10:19 AM EDT



    © Getty

    The House is slated to vote Tuesday on bipartisan legislation to limit the Trump administration's ability to lift sanctions on Russia.
    The White House had urged lawmakers to water down the provisions limiting its ability to lift sanctions. But the legislation is expected to head to President Trump's desk without the requested changes.




    Procedural hangups had stalled the legislation in the House for weeks after the Senate passed it by a vote of 98-2 last month but negotiators reached a deal that was unveiled on Saturday.
    The legislation will be considered under an expedited process that requires a two-thirds majority for passage. That also means it'll pass by a veto-proof majority.


    In addition to imposing new sanctions on Russia, the legislation allows lawmakers to vote to block the Trump administration from making changes to sanctions policy.
    Next week's vote on the sanctions legislation will come amid investigations of whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign.


    The sanctions package will be one of the last items on the House agenda before lawmakers are scheduled to leave for the month-long August recess at the end of next week.
    House Democrats had been objecting to a provision inserted by GOP leaders that allowed only the majority party to force a vote on a resolution approving or disapproving of the Trump administration's sanctions policy.


    Under the deal unveiled Saturday, either the House majority or minority leader can introduce such a resolution.
    "The legislation ensures that both the majority and minority are able to exercise our oversight role over the administration’s implementation of sanctions," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who pushed for the revision in talks with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).


    But some Democrats worry that the minority leader won't be guaranteed a vote on a resolution of disapproval even if it is introduced.
    The legislation includes sanctions on Iran as punishment for its ballistic missile development. Negotiators further added North Korea sanctions to the package in the latest version of the bill.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed concern the addition of North Korea sanctions could add procedural delays in the Senate, even though she supports them.

    "It is essential that the addition of North Korea to this package does not prevent Congress from immediately enacting Russia sanctions legislation and sending it to the President's desk before the August recess," Pelosi said in a statement.
    The House had passed North Korea sanctions legislation earlier this spring by a vote of 419-1, which will now be included.

    Warren Beatty: actor, director, writer, producer.

    ***** celeb

  7. #1642
    Elite Member HWBL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,344

    Default

    Sorry for separate post: the edit thing again.

    Rumors about the orange asshat suffering from frontotemporal dementia are beginning to get stronger. Several specialists in this field, although none of them have examined him, have stated he is showing symptoms for this specific type of dementia:

    Loss of empathy
    Socially inappropriate behavior
    Lack of inhibition
    Language recall problems
    Loss of reading and writing skills
    Repetitive compulsive behavior
    Inability to concentrate or plan
    Frequent, abrupt mood changes
    Speech difficulties
    Problems with balance or movement
    Apathy, or lack of interest or enthusiasm in activities
    Memory loss

    His dad did die from a related type of dementia, Alzheimer's, as is publicly known.
    Warren Beatty: actor, director, writer, producer.

    ***** celeb

  8. #1643
    Elite Member Nevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,561

    Default

    I've been warned of these symptoms and have experienced most of them to some degree from a TBI almost 30 years ago. I had anterograde amnesia for at least three weeks afterwards and I've never been the same. I'm only in my 40s so it's *really* scary. I've suffered from varying stages of temporary memory loss for many years. In my case, it's kind of complicated because I've also been diagnosed with panic and OCD, which share a lot of the same symptoms as the dementia described above.
    "Please, I can't breathe."

    We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided.

  9. #1644
    Elite Member Flygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,240

    Default

    He has had the first four symptoms all his life though.....

  10. #1645
    Elite Member stella blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,241

    Default


  11. #1646
    Elite Member SHELLEE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    24,148

    Default

    I just hope that I don't have to wait for cheeto to get indicted/impeached as long as I've waited for the Leann and Eddie implosion.
    tulip, Trixie, lindsaywhit and 2 others like this.
    See, Whores, we are good for something. Love, Florida
    #fingersinthebootyassbitch

  12. #1647
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Donald Trump has been asked to make a 'dummy run' visit to Britain later this year for brief talks with Theresa May to show he can avoid embarrassing Queen.

    Donald Trump asked to make a 'dummy' visit to the UK | Daily Mail Online

  13. #1648
    Elite Member OrangeSlice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Studying with Master Grumpy Cat
    Posts
    11,456

    Default

    Aren't they all dummy visits?
    "Schadenfreude, hard to spell, easy to feel." ~VenusinFauxFurs

    "Scoffing is one of my main hobbies!" ~Trixie

  14. #1649
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    9,049

    Default

    I think that he wants all the pomp and ceremony without doing any work. He would have a parade and rallies in DC every day if he could. It must drive him absolutely crazy that although he has ardent supporters, most people think he sucks. Bigly.

  15. #1650
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,381

    Default


    Teddy Davis @TeddyDavisCNN

    Scaramucci tells @jaketapper Trump told him yesterday if Russia had done election hacking - you wouldn't know it b/c of skill at deception.
    9:09 AM · Jul 23, 2017

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: March 29th, 2016, 09:00 AM
  2. Evan Peters Joins 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' as Quicksilver
    By dowcat in forum Television and Movies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 24th, 2013, 02:45 PM
  3. Replies: 120
    Last Post: May 11th, 2013, 07:52 PM
  4. 14 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in past 3 days
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 30th, 2010, 09:39 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2008, 10:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •