The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[tragabigzanda]

wtf verb, you deleted your post so now i look like a crazy person

[verb_to_trust]

wtf verb, you deleted your post so now i look like a crazy person

Sorry. I bottom paged you without a quote so just deleted and lost interest

[verb_to_trust]

What I'd read prior is that obstruction of justice only applies when the accused has obstructed pursuant to orders from the judicial branch. Taking that at face value, it seems like a fair defense.

What about ordering his lackeys not to cooperate with subpoena?

[tree_]

What I'd read prior is that obstruction of justice only applies when the accused has obstructed pursuant to orders from the judicial branch. Taking that at face value, it seems like a fair defense.

Michael Gearheart in response: "Obstruction of Justice is not just about obstruction of a court, it's obstruction of any lawful proceeding"

[bune]

[tragabigzanda]

What I'd read prior is that obstruction of justice only applies when the accused has obstructed pursuant to orders from the judicial branch. Taking that at face value, it seems like a fair defense.

Michael Gearheart in response: "Obstruction of Justice is not just about obstruction of a court, it's obstruction of any lawful proceeding"

Thanks, I didn't see this. I guess we'd need to see House/Senate rules, and anything in the constitution, that spells this out clearly?

[tree_]

What I'd read prior is that obstruction of justice only applies when the accused has obstructed pursuant to orders from the judicial branch. Taking that at face value, it seems like a fair defense.

Michael Gearheart in response: "Obstruction of Justice is not just about obstruction of a court, it's obstruction of any lawful proceeding"

Thanks, I didn't see this. I guess we'd need to see House/Senate rules, and anything in the constitution, that spells this out clearly?

I guess so. I don't know if you or anyone on the board of RM is aware and it may come as a surprise to some of you, but I am not technically or OFFICIALLY a lawyer or scholar of law.

[tragabigzanda]

What I'd read prior is that obstruction of justice only applies when the accused has obstructed pursuant to orders from the judicial branch. Taking that at face value, it seems like a fair defense.

Michael Gearheart in response: "Obstruction of Justice is not just about obstruction of a court, it's obstruction of any lawful proceeding"

Thanks, I didn't see this. I guess we'd need to see House/Senate rules, and anything in the constitution, that spells this out clearly?

I guess so. I don't know if you or anyone on the board of RM is aware and it may come as a surprise to some of you, but I am not technically or OFFICIALLY a lawyer or scholar of law.

[tragabigzanda]

[laugh track plays]

[tree_]

He called her "gentle lady". "The gentle lady yields back." Hmm.. Shouldn't it be "gentle woman"? Gentle man, gentle woman. Ladies and gentlemen. Man and woman. Gentle man, gentle woman. Right? Gentle lady, gentle gentleman?

[verb_to_trust]

He called her "gentle lady". "The gentle lady yields back." Hmm.. Shouldn't it be "gentle woman"? Gentle man, gentle woman. Ladies and gentlemen. Man and woman. Gentle man, gentle woman. Right? Gentle lady, gentle gentleman?

Gentle Lady is just part of that folksy GOP charm

[tree_]

He called her "gentle lady". "The gentle lady yields back." Hmm.. Shouldn't it be "gentle woman"? Gentle man, gentle woman. Ladies and gentlemen. Man and woman. Gentle man, gentle woman. Right? Gentle lady, gentle gentleman?

Gentle Lady is just part of that folksy GOP charm

But Nadler the 'crat spoke it

[4/5]

What I'd read prior is that obstruction of justice only applies when the accused has obstructed pursuant to orders from the judicial branch. Taking that at face value, it seems like a fair defense.

Michael Gearheart in response: "Obstruction of Justice is not just about obstruction of a court, it's obstruction of any lawful proceeding"

Thanks, I didn't see this. I guess we'd need to see House/Senate rules, and anything in the constitution, that spells this out clearly?

The Constitution is pretty vague on impeachment:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[tree_]

Well, they're definitely not abusing their power then. That was a bunch of BS from Turley.

[tree_]

OMG. His rambling in London about the impeachment hearing is amazing. What a complete and utter embarrassment. He has no shame.

[bune]

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-tr ... 1840200887

POTUS then added “That was funny when I said that guy was two-faced,” referring to Trudeau.

[tree_]

Rep. Gaetz is a star.

Even bigger tool than Gym Jordan. Didn't know that was possible.

[bune]

do you have one in mind?

[tree_]

yeah wtf

[tragabigzanda]