Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 97
  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigticket1 View Post
    Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano doesn't agree - "Under the law. the person running the Department of Justice must have been approved by the United State Senate for some previous position. Even on an interim post."
    Looks like Judge Nap is wrong:

    Matthew Whitaker joined the Trump Justice Department as Sessions’s chief of staff in October 2017. The date is relevant. The president has named him as acting attorney general under the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (the relevant provisions are codified at Sections 3345 and 3346 of Title 5, U.S. Code). There has been some commentary suggesting that because Whitaker was in a job (chief of staff) that did not require Senate confirmation, he could not become the “acting officer” in a position (AG) that calls for Senate confirmation. Not so. The Vacancies Act enables the president to name an acting officer, who may serve as such for 210 days, as long as the person named has been working at the agency or department for at least 90 days in a fairly high-ranking position. Whitaker qualifies.


    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ellent-choice/

    Napolitano is not a bad guy but he tends to shoot his mouth off a bit without checking the facts. Sometimes he gets it right, sometimes not. When he says something, double check.


  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Bummer for you that none of them were actually involved with Trump Russian collusion. I know you meant to add that....

    I think that Mueller may take down the Russian tooth fairy next, according to sources who would know.

    BTW- I love this one where Concord's attorney is just laughing at the SC Mueller and his team (this is an actual court response):

    Concord Management, the Russian company charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller with interfering in the 2016 election, filed a a biting response to the prosecutor’s allegations Thursday, claiming Mueller has “mind-bendingly” failed to prove the company willfully intended to defraud the United States.

    In a nine-page filing in federal court in Washington, D.C., Concord Management attorney Eric Dubelier likened Mueller’s claims to the cries of the cartoon character, Tweety bird.

    Dubelier, of the Reed Smith law firm, wrote: “The special counsel’s retort has been that he was not required to charge willfulness because he did not charge violations of [the Federal Election Campaign Act or the Foreign Agent Registration Act.] Now in mind-bending, intergalactic, whiplash fashion, he says for the first time, I did, I did, I charged violations of FECA and FARA.”

    In a footnote which stands out in the filing, Dubelier instructs the court to consider the “I did, I did” line to sound “a lot like I did, I did I taw a puddy tat. (Tweetie, 1948.)”
    [sic]

    Dubelier continued: “Reminiscent of the old adage, ‘give a man enough rope and he will hang himself,’ the Special Counsel just did so.”
    A) What? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury
    B) Did you pull this from one of your wacky right wing sites? Because you chose to omit a link.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    28,560
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stocker08 View Post
    A) What? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury
    B) Did you pull this from one of your wacky right wing sites? Because you chose to omit a link.
    Beeg has gone full DH on us. Spend all day marinating in his RWNJ tin-hat sites then come here and spew out a nice delusional summary of it with no source.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stocker08 View Post
    A) What? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury
    B) Did you pull this from one of your wacky right wing sites? Because you chose to omit a link.
    Sorry can find the link right now- I'll get it for you.
    Here is a link to it in a real nutty left wing source. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/polit...es/index.htmls

    As to Vox- can you read? There is not one indictment that points to Trump- Russia collusion. Use your own words and show me a charge of Trump- Russia collusion among those. Let's do this.
    Last edited by bga1; 11-08-2018 at 04:48 PM.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Sorry can find the link right now- I'll get it for you.

    As to Vox- can you read? There is not one indictment that points to Trump- Russia collusion. Use your own words and show me a charge of Trump- Russia collusion among those. Let's do this.
    It's indictments due to the Mueller investigation.

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stocker08 View Post
    It's indictments due to the Mueller investigation.

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
    NONE related to TRUMP-RUSSIAN collusion.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    NONE related to TRUMP-RUSSIAN collusion.
    Not yet. But I was talking about the investigation.

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

  8. #38

    Default

    Man, there seem to be a lot of lawyers claiming that their clients are totally innocent. Has this ever happened before?

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    NONE related to TRUMP-RUSSIAN collusion.
    None of the 3 articles of impeachment against Nixon was for ordering people to commit theft against a political opponent. I'm sure this gave Nixon much reason to celebrate on the evening of August 9, 1974.

    Bill Clinton was not impeached for anything related to financial crimes in the Whitewater affair. This is why all historians recognize his victory over Ken Starr and the Republicans as decisive.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    Man, there seem to be a lot of lawyers claiming that their clients are totally innocent. Has this ever happened before?
    No one from the Trump campaign has been charged with Russian collusion. Name one. The Obama administration did try to lure both Page and Papadopoulos into Russian contacts though and that my boy, is going to backfire bigly as the cover of spygate gets peeled off. Notice Page -with a FISA warrant on him for a year- covering all of his communications and all of those he communicated with, was never charged. Note that Papadop got hit with lying and a big 14 day jail sentence which he may never serve- check out his tweets.

    Manafort- bank crimes Gates- same Flynn - McCabe changed his 302s to trap him and McCabe will go to prison (unless he flips on Obama) while Flynn never will. Russian troll farms- LOL!

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    None of the 3 articles of impeachment against Nixon was for ordering people to commit theft against a political opponent. I'm sure this gave Nixon much reason to celebrate on the evening of August 9, 1974.

    Bill Clinton was not impeached for anything related to financial crimes in the Whitewater affair. This is why all historians recognize his victory over Ken Starr and the Republicans as decisive.
    Tell me what you think will happen then. I am all ears!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Reality, USA
    Posts
    7,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stocker08 View Post
    Mueller has already taken down a bunch of crooks. And he's likely not done.
    I agree his work is not done. Obama and his corrupt doj, fbi need to be taken down.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Reality, USA
    Posts
    7,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    Both can be true. Sessions was a terrible choice for AG. The one right thing he did was recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Now we have Trump's stooge over seeing it. And you cheer it on. Trump boot-licker #1.
    Scared of what may come, eh hackin howie? Your friends may be exposed more than they already have been.

    I cheer for the truth. You, on the other hand, want nothing to do with the truth.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Reality, USA
    Posts
    7,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    Man, there seem to be a lot of lawyers claiming that their clients are totally innocent. Has this ever happened before?
    Does that include lawyers for your d friends?

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarnBurner View Post
    I agree his work is not done. Obama and his corrupt doj, fbi need to be taken down.
    Before or after Trump is taken down?

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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