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.
He did the same thing in NYC. Leaked on himself. It is an old game with him. Not my theory as much as I lived in the NYC area for 30 years. His scam is old as the hills.
I'm not going to say anything about his leaks, other than than he has a record of urinations, galore.
A person on Twitter asked an interesting question regarding Presidential immunity from indictment, to wit: if the President were to physically assault his wife inside the White House, would he be subject to prosecution for domestic battery?
It is a bit of an extreme example, admittedly. However, if one argues that the President cannot be prosecuted because he is 'above the law', then it seems that the argument would lead to 'no indictment' for this crime. However, I believe most Americans would reject this argument, at least in this particular example.
Anyway, we must recall that there are two periods of time under consideration: the actions of Donald J. Trump prior to January 20, 2016, and his actions thereafter as President.
So, if Mr. Trump engaged in illegal activity prior to January 20, 2016, can he be prosecuted for such crimes after assuming office? In other words, does assuming the Office of the Presidency throw a blanket of immunity over him?
I would doubt it. After all, the White Water investigation was clearly about alleged criminal activity committed well prior to Mr. Clinton becoming President. If Mr. Clinton had obtained immunity upon taking the oath of office, then there would have been no investigation at all.
As for crimes that may have been committed after assuming the Presidency: it is possible that the Courts would make a distinction: crimes committed while performing his duties as President, and crimes that are unconnected to the office.
Battery against his wife (to use the example given) would clearly be a crime unconnected to his duties as President. Other crimes, such as leaking of classified information to foreign entities (recall Mr. Trump's meeting in the Oval Office with some Russians) could be argued as being part and parcel of his duties as President.
It is an interesting subject to mull over, at the least.
I love your status message .
Re that, I saw the picture of Trump with the letter and the North Korean official, and Trump looks clueless to the fact that he is being trolled by the size of the letter ( I suppose the size of the letter could be a coincidence, but I doubt it).
BTW, I think you mean his actions before and after January 20th, 2017, not 2016.
Re that, I saw the picture of Trump with the letter and the North Korean official, and Trump looks clueless to the fact that he is being trolled by the size of the letter ( I suppose the size of the letter could be a coincidence, but I doubt it).
BTW, I think you mean his actions before and after January 20th, 2017, not 2016.
I suspect he was being trolled by the size of the letter. It was ridiculously huge, made his hands look small.
I think he was also trolled by the suggestion he should get a Nobel Peace Prize for sending insulting tweets.
I suspect the remark was made sarcastically.
I watched part of his recent rally where right on cue there was a chorus of, "Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!" It was timed perfectly, with a number of voices all at once.
In fact, I suspect ths whole summit business is a troll operation.
Leader Kim didn't send negotiators to Singapore to make arrangements for the summit. When Trump cancels, he sends his top cyber spy guy to the WH where he hangs around the Oval Office for two hours.
Now the word is that Kim will come to Singapore if someone else picks up the tab for the ritzy suite he insists on.
Good grief.
Trump is being played. Wonder how much he will give away to get Kim to that meeting.
Who leaked the letter? First of all there is nothing wrong with the premise of the letter. Bill Clinton's lawyers sent a similar letter to Kens Star when Star was conducting bis own with hunt against Clinton. 2nd, doesn't ANYONE find it a little odd that someone in the FBI or perhaps Muller himself leaked this letter to the NY Times of all media outlets, yet he has leaked nothing about his investigation. This entire investigation is terribly disturbing.
No he did not. The clinton lawyers did not send a letter stating that the president can not obstruct any investigation by definition.
Why lie?
As arrogant and obnoxious as Trump is when he says "witch hunt" and "absolutely no collusion," you'd think he would feel comfortable talking to the Feds under oath. Trump is so certain that he's done nothing wrong when in front of his supporters at a rally, yet he's scared to talk to the FBI.
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.
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.
.
I suppose the size of the letter could be a coincidence, but I doubt it).
