Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"President Donald Trump's public financial disclosure form was released on Wednesday, and it says Trump 'fully reimbursed' his long-time lawyer Michael Cohen for an unspecified amount and purpose in 2017." -- Trump's financial disclosure report released
Welp, so much for that angle.
I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me what the DOJ's policy is. I can factually claim what the DOJ's policy is because it is factually their policy. It's a basic axiom: A=A. Did you sleep all the way through school or something?
Opinion != fact.
Your understanding of law and order in this country doesn’t align with reality.
Anyone who wants to act like they comprehend this should care.
And its not just Democrats discussing this. I think a lot of Republicans think President Pence would be FAR more effective. And I think they're right. I do agree, I find it unlikely he will be impeached based on our current knowledge. But he should be. The corruption and graft that has shown up will damage our democracy for decades. And the GOP has shown they do not care.
But seriously, you and others should at least try to understand the facts about what impeachment is, and what high crimes and misdemeanors are. It galls me when so many people want to argue the topic, without any comprehension that impeachment via high crimes and misdemeanors has ZERO to do with something being a felony or misdemeanor. Its got a very specific meaning that involves neither of those.
You can't even tell the difference between fact and opinion so you have no call to evaluate my understanding of anything.
Playing that card so quickly?
You’ve put your understanding out on display for everyone, if you don’t want it evaluated, don’t bother posting.
“What stands out most about these two asserted bases of OLC’s authority is that neither clearly supports the claim that the two OLC memos on presidential immunity bind the Office of Special Counsel. As to the first source of authority, neither of those memos was requested by the head of an executive department outside of DOJ, so the attorney general’s duty “to render opinions” to such officials simply doesn’t apply.
That leaves the second source of authority, which by its own terms is subject to an important exception: OLC’s authority to issue binding opinions does not extend to executive branch officials who are “authorized by law” to “conduct litigation on behalf of the United States” without first getting the attorney general’s blessing for the positions they intend to take. Due in part to this exception, independent agencies within the executive branch, to quote former OLC Deputy and now-D.C. Circuit Judge Nina Pillard, are “not…presumptively bound” by OLC’s opinions.“
So can anyone explain what specific crime Trump supposedly committed and what evidence there is to support that assertion?
I believe the answer is no, but I just thought I would check.
That hasn't come out yet and it's what EVERYONE is waiting for including congress. Clearly Giuliani knows there is something or else he would not find out for certain that Muller would not indict a sitting President. Why would anyone on team Trump being looking to be sure their boss won't be indicted if there is no there, there? I mean why all this if there is nothing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.