Discussion:
Nixon 1977: when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
(too old to reply)
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-05 15:00:01 UTC
Permalink
https://www.landmarkcases.org/united-states-v-nixon/nixons-views-on-presidential-power
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
2017:  the president "cannot obstruct justice"
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/04/can-the-president-obstruct-justice-216008
Trump’s private lawyer, John Dowd, said on Monday morning that he had
authored the tweet, but insisted it was “ignorant and arrogant” to say
the tweet admitted obstruction. Dowd then went one step further,
claiming 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.”
Being as the President is chief law enforcement the fact that he asked
Ukraine to look into corruption makes it legal. And it isn't violating
any election law because there is no election between TRUMP and Biden
until Biden wins the PRIMARY and the two are in a General election.

If you could stop TRUMP from talking about Biden's crimes then you could
stop TRUMP from talking about Cory Booker's crimes or Gavin Newsom's
crimes and the President wouldn't be able to stop crimes by anyone
running for any office and they could commit crimes all around the world
like Pedophiles riding on *Epstein's Pedophile Airline* and the
President would have to allow the crimes to continue rather than asking
the Virgin Islands or Haiti to look for the corruption.


If Biden were standing with a gun in his hand, over over Hillary's body
with a bullet hole in it, TRUMP would be required to see to it that all
laws be faithfully executed. Even though BIDEN is running for office in
a Democrat primary.

TRUMP is required by the Constitution and NO law by the FEC can override
that Constitutional mandate to faithfully execute the law.


Didn't Kuwait uncover a plot to kill George Bush Sr. the president and
didn't Clinton uncover that and Bomb Iraq for that one....? It seems
the President has Constitutional power s to act when there is a crime.
And if you look at the SUPREMACY CLAUSE it tells you that no law can be
supreme to the Constitution. Therefore no election law is supreme to
the power the President has to faithfully enforce the laws.
--
That's Karma
Byker
2019-10-05 17:39:14 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/2019 8:00 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
https://www.landmarkcases.org/united-states-v-nixon/nixons-views-on-presidential-power
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
2017:  the president "cannot obstruct justice"
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/04/can-the-president-obstruct-justice-216008
Trump’s private lawyer, John Dowd, said on Monday morning that he had
authored the tweet, but insisted it was “ignorant and arrogant” to say
the tweet admitted obstruction. Dowd then went one step further, claiming
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.”
Being as [sic] the President is chief law enforcement the fact that he asked
Ukraine to look into corruption makes it legal.
He didn't ask them to "look into" corruption - he asked them for a personal
political favor.
Steve is offline now
2019-10-05 18:04:16 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/2019 10:50 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by Byker
On 10/5/2019 8:00 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
https://www.landmarkcases.org/united-states-v-nixon/nixons-views-on-presidential-power
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
2017:  the president "cannot obstruct justice"
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/04/can-the-president-obstruct-justice-216008
Trump’s private lawyer, John Dowd, said on Monday morning that he had
authored the tweet, but insisted it was “ignorant and arrogant” to say
the tweet admitted obstruction. Dowd then went one step further,
claiming 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.”
Being as [sic] the President is chief law enforcement the fact that he
asked Ukraine to look into corruption makes it legal.
He didn't ask them to "look into" corruption - he asked them for a
personal political favor.
A favor to "us"  meaning AMerica
No - a favor *ONLY* to Trump. This is not in dispute.

Loading...