Page 65 of 220 FirstFirst ... 1555606162636465666768697075115165 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 2198
  1. #641
    filghy2 Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,162

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Quote Originally Posted by Jericho View Post
    Damn, but there's some crazy fukkers in the comments section!
    PamBenTrumpin is right onto the truth - George Soros masterminding rampant vote fraud. There had to be an international Jewish-financial conspiracy in there somewhere. Luckily he's an incompetent vote-rigger - must've got the states mixed up in 2016.



  2. #642
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,474

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Reading about the NFL decision on kneeling during the National Anthem, I came across the US Flag Code, which I had never heard of before -does this mean that if the President -any President- wears a US Flag lapel badge he is violating the Code?

    Football player Sage Rosenfels makes this point:

    Rosenfels then dropped the hammer on the NFL itself by quoting the official U.S. flag code that was established in the 1940s.

    “The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery,” the code reads in part. “The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any way whatsoever.”
    He then posted a photo of an official player jersey being sold by the NFL that incorporates the flag into a player’s number — which is a direct violation of the U.S. flag code.
    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/for...perfect-photo/



  3. #643
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,474

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    I read this today:

    Donald Trump’s lawyers sent a private 20-page letter to the special counsel Robert Mueller to assert that he cannot be forced to testify in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to a report.

    They also argue that Trump could not have committed obstruction because he has absolute authority over all federal investigations.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...private-letter

    If in purely legal terms the above is true, and if the Democrats gain control of Congress, they might be best changing the law rather than impeaching the President. It appears that what was considered immoral but not illegal -using the Office of President to make money, for example- has been challenged by a man determined to use the office for financial gain, knowing he can do it legally. Moreover, I think that in a divided Congress, rational changes to the law that deal with legal issues exposed by the current President would attract bi-partisan votes in a way impeachment would not. And it would have the longer lasting benefit of limiting what a President can currently do with the Office.



  4. #644
    Senior Member Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,563

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    On TV they said if Fox News existed in the 1970s like it does now, Watergate would have never existed. The White House and Fox have 83% of Republicans believing Mueller is a political hit-man. Fox has the advantage of preaching to a choir that is lily white, while legit news services have to reach out to an audience of all cultures. CNN and NBC have to play by the rules of good journalism, all Fox needs to do is keep Murdoch happy. Slanted Media coverage is worth a fortune. They can change lies into truth. My kind of Lawyer. My kind of Jury.



    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    World Class Asshole

  5. #645
    Rude Gurl Professional Poster Yvonne183's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bedlam Royal Hospital
    Posts
    1,069

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Free Tommy Robinson!


    I'm the girl nobody knows until she commits suicide.
    Then suddenly everyone knew me.

  6. #646
    filghy2 Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,162

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    Donald Trump’s lawyers sent a private 20-page letter to the special counsel Robert Mueller to assert that he cannot be forced to testify in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to a report.

    They also argue that Trump could not have committed obstruction because he has absolute authority over all federal investigations.
    Nixon made similar assertions of unlimited executive privilege. Even after he resigned he continued to assert that "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal". My understanding is that these claims were rejected by the courts (eg he was forced hand over the critical tapes). The Court also ruled against Bill Clinton's attempt to invoke executive privilege in the Paula Jones case. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/02/p...ege/index.html

    I'm no constitutional law expert, but I assume that the Supreme Court would again reject such extreme assertions if it came to the test, which it probably will at some point. The scary question is what happens if Trump simply defies their decisions.



  7. #647
    Senior Member Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,563

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Quote Originally Posted by Jericho View Post
    Damn, but there's some crazy fukkers in the comments section!
    Trump's twitter page has the greatest comments in the world.


    World Class Asshole

  8. #648
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Quote Originally Posted by filghy2 View Post
    Nixon made similar assertions of unlimited executive privilege. Even after he resigned he continued to assert that "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal". My understanding is that these claims were rejected by the courts (eg he was forced hand over the critical tapes). The Court also ruled against Bill Clinton's attempt to invoke executive privilege in the Paula Jones case. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/02/p...ege/index.html

    I'm no constitutional law expert, but I assume that the Supreme Court would again reject such extreme assertions if it came to the test, which it probably will at some point. The scary question is what happens if Trump simply defies their decisions.
    Nixon was forced to hand over subpoenaed tapes and the court held that the executive privilege was broad but not unlimited. My understanding is that the executive privilege is somewhat analogous to the deliberative process privilege which applies to agencies that want to shield their deliberations from public view until they've reached a conclusion. The same ideas underpin the privilege, which is that decisions are undermined if officials' thought processes are subject to scrutiny while they are grappling with an issue.

    The court will balance the relevance of the information to the judicial process against whatever role secrecy plays to the efficient operation of the executive branch. I don't know how Trump will fare but it's already been determined the privilege has limits and is not intended to protect information simply because the President finds it embarrassing or legally inconvenient.

    As for the claim that "if the President does it it's not illegal", that is Nixonian and stems from a similar mindset about the nature of executive power. The belief of Nixon, which was never judicially tested nor part of impeachment hearings because he resigned, is that the President cannot obstruct justice because whenever he acts within his article ii power, the act is legitimate regardless of his motive.

    It is an unconvincing argument because the executive branch uses officers to carry out its functions and some of those officers act autonomously. If the President has committed crimes and he puts obstacles in the way of his own officers, he is obstructing justice, notwithstanding the fact that he is taking specific actions he would be empowered to take if not for his corrupt motive.

    Firing the head of the fbi=constitutionally permissible. Firing the head of the fbi because he is investigating you=obstruction of justice, a federal offense.

    I don't know whether the information the President doesn't want to divulge is covered by privilege but I do know that it would be very difficult to find five intelligent people who thinks Nixon's maxim makes sense.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.

  9. #649
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Quote Originally Posted by broncofan View Post
    Nixon was forced to hand over subpoenaed tapes and the court held that the executive privilege was broad but not unlimited. My understanding is that the executive privilege is somewhat analogous to the deliberative process privilege which applies to agencies that want to shield their deliberations from public view until they've reached a conclusion. The same ideas underpin the privilege, which is that decisions are undermined if officials' thought processes are subject to scrutiny while they are grappling with an issue.

    The court will balance the relevance of the information to the judicial process against whatever role secrecy plays to the efficient operation of the executive branch. I don't know how Trump will fare but it's already been determined the privilege has limits and is not intended to protect information simply because the President finds it embarrassing or legally inconvenient.
    Turns out executive privilege is broader than the deliberative process privilege which is just one component. I still feel like the justification for the deliberative process privilege mostly applies to the entire scope of executive privilege which is that the independence of the branch depends on candid communications within it. This is a decent primer on the subject. Doesn't cover exactly how it works in a grand jury setting but gives you an idea that the privilege has a specific purpose and scope and asserting it is not merely to get a rubber stamp shielding any activity from scrutiny. https://lawfareblog.com/primer-execu...onal-oversight


    I feel like the following is the crux of it: The Court rejected Nixon’s argument that the privilege was absolute and therefore precluded enforcement of the grand jury subpoena. Instead, at least when grounded in the president’s generalized interest in the confidentiality of his communications, the Court viewed the privilege as a qualified one, subject to a balancing of the competing interests and legitimate needs of the respective branches—and ordered the production of the tapes.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    Last edited by broncofan; 06-06-2018 at 06:07 AM.

  10. #650
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,474

    Default Re: Thought for the Day

    Quote Originally Posted by Yvonne183 View Post
    Free Tommy Robinson!
    Why? He broke the law, having been warned by the Court too desist from attempting to reveal the details in a case before it was completed, where there is a legally justified ban on media reporting because the defendants are involved in more than one trial. It does not happen often, but happens to protect the integrity of the justice system, should details of one trial affect the decisions of the jury in another. 'Robinsons' aim throughout has been to smear the reputation of Islam on the basis that the religion and the people who practice it have no place in the UK. As a former 'leader' of the 'English Defence League' he is one of many wannabe leaders of the English who have been insulting the country ever since the British Brothers League targeted Jews in the early 20th century, and make no mistake, Muslims might be first in the departure lounge, Afro-Caribbeans and Jews are in taxis on their way to the exit, if he were to make public policy.

    Here's the other thing: not only is this former leader of the 'English Defence League' in reality Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, his parental heritage is Irish, not English. He has at various times also asked to be identified as Andrew McMaster or Paul Harris, after, all what's in a name? It might not be fake news, but fake names it is.

    He is a loser and an idiot, which is why he is in prison where he belongs.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

Similar Threads

  1. just a thought
    By Rebecca1963 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 05:51 PM
  2. Just a thought
    By bellamy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-12-2009, 06:06 AM
  3. I never thought I would do this...
    By daleach in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-25-2008, 10:01 AM
  4. Never given this much thought
    By Hara_Juku Tgirl in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 05:05 PM
  5. I had thought......
    By blackmagic in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 04:09 AM

Posting Permissions

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