President Donald J. Trump

[Kidnostad3]

This is the fat ugly lesbian that tried to ram Trump

Can anyone tell me what there is about being gay to take pride in to the extent that one participates  in gay pride demonstrations?  If one is born gay and it is a natural state as opposed to being a case of gender dysphoria" or gender identity disorder, why would anyone take any particular pride in being gay?  It never occurred to me to be proud of being straight and I don't think I would feel compelled to attend a heterosexual pride rally if such a thing existed.

[Gd5150]

This is the fat ugly lesbian that tried to ram Trump

Hold on! Let's not rush to judgement. According to the brainless leftwing lemmings she was "shaken up" clearly because it was an "accident".

[PB the Deplorable]

... Mueller is apparently handling his investigating like the prosecution of a mob boss...

FIFY

[3OctaveFart]

LOL. You know the orange clown is fucked when the guys suctioned to his wide ass start to compare the Purple Heart Mueller to a mob boss.

[Kidnostad3]

LOL. You know the orange clown is fucked when the guys suctioned to his wide ass start to compare the Purple Heart Mueller to a mob boss.

So, no purple hear recipients ever became crooks?  Source?

[3OctaveFart]

So, no purple hear recipients ever became crooks?  Source?

Let's go over this real quick, just once, because it will be on the test at the end.

Robert Mueller is a Republican. That means he's on your 'team', chief (because I know 'root root root for the home team' is how types like you view our polities). He has no reason to 'go after' your fraud president.

At some point, he's the crook, not everyone else.

I really hope you're not expecting a more sophisticated answer than that, because on this thread, and with this crowd, a clinical approach - let's be serious - is a total waste of time. Like administering medicine to the dead. But hey, see you at the impeachment? Buy you a cold one? Don't worry, 'Mother' gets to play president next, and you can cheerlead for him like you have for Donald.

[Kidnostad3]

Let's go over this real quick, just once, because it will be on the test at the end.

Robert Mueller is a Republican. That means he's on your 'team', chief (because I know 'root root root for the home team' is how types like you view our polities). He has no reason to 'go after' your fraud president.

You are making more dumb ass assumptions:   1) I'm not a Republican. 2) The Republican establishment tried to cut Trump off at the knees during the campaign and it is still trying.  3) Mueller has been in bed with Hilliary and Bill for years as has been discussed on this thread repeatedly.  Your brain just had a three octave fart.

[Gd5150]

Let's go over this real quick, just once, because it will be on the test at the end.

Robert Mueller is a Republican. That means he's on your 'team', chief (because I know 'root root root for the home team' is how types like you view our polities). He has no reason to 'go after' your fraud president.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Stupid obviously doesn't understand why a Purple Heart is awarded. Or anything about the law.

Let's go over this real quick. In order to get a conviction in the court of law you need something called evidence. Unfortunately DemokkkratParty/Media lemming talking points and accusations don't qualify as evidence in the court of law. Let's look at the evidence gathered in a year of illegal wiretaps and investigations into the witch hunt:



Any questions?

[PB the Deplorable]

You are making more dumb ass assumptions:   1) I'm not a Republican. 2) The Republican establishment tried to cut Trump off at the knees during the campaign and it is still trying.  3) Mueller has been in bed with Hilliary and Bill for years as has been discussed on this thread repeatedly.  Your brain just had a three octave fart.

He thinks the Republicans operate the same way the Democrats do, that running in their primaries and on their ticket means Trump is a Republican, and that the Party establishment supports him.

How he came to those conclusions remains a mystery. 

[21st Century Man]

Let's go over this real quick, just once, because it will be on the test at the end.

Robert Mueller is a Republican. That means he's on your 'team', chief (because I know 'root root root for the home team' is how types like you view our polities). He has no reason to 'go after' your fraud president.

At some point, he's the crook, not everyone else.

I really hope you're not expecting a more sophisticated answer than that, because on this thread, and with this crowd, a clinical approach - let's be serious - is a total waste of time. Like administering medicine to the dead. But hey, see you at the impeachment? Buy you a cold one? Don't worry, 'Mother' gets to play president next, and you can cheerlead for him like you have for Donald.

John McCain, Bitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Corker, and Jeff Flake.  Our team, Ha!  Tell us another one.

[PB the Deplorable]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Stupid obviously doesn't understand why a Purple Heart is awarded. Or anything about the law.

Let's go over this real quick. In order to get a conviction in the court of law you need something called evidence. Unfortunately DemokkkratParty/Media lemming talking points and accusations don't qualify as evidence in the court of law...

What they are going to do is grill everyone relentlessly.  People see things differently, have different recollections, memories fade.  They will find no evidence of ''collusion'' with the Russians to influence the elections, but any contact can be said to be for that purpose.  Everything any campaign does is try to ''influence'' voters to support them.  As does the party apparatus and party members.

The goal here is to find conflicting testimony due to the differing views, recollections, and faded memories, then charge them with perjury.  It's what they did to Martha Stewart, among others. 

Any prosecutor can get guillty pleas doing this, sometimes even convictions.  Certainly someone who sees his career on the line, and has hired literally dozens of top Democrat prosecutors in order to ensure they get something on Trump.  This is why we have juries - to have some limit somewhere in the system on prosecutorial abuse.  It's why we have executive pardon power - to have some limit somewhere in the system on political kangaroo courts (see Arpaio, Joe for a current example).

[Gd5150]

Any prosecutor can get guillty pleas doing this, sometimes even convictions.  Certainly someone who sees his career on the line, and has hired literally dozens of top Democrat prosecutors in order to ensure they get something on Trump.  This is why we have juries - to have some limit somewhere in the system on prosecutorial abuse.  It's why we have executive pardon power - to have some limit somewhere in the system on political kangaroo courts (see Arpaio, Joe for a current example).

Well now the flavor of the week news the Demokkkrat lemmings will be orgasming over is the new idea that they will go after Trump on state charges, for example NY State where the presidential pardon has no authority. Dan Rather has said so, so it must be true.

So now for the next few days we're going to be hearing about this approach by Mueller by the entire Demokkkrat media. Until it's established this approach has no precidence and is unconstitutional and it'll be gone by Monday. Also because right now the country cares much more about the victims in Houston than this tired outdated witch hunt.

I'll go ahead and post a story to save one of the brainless drive by lemmings here from posting it, and then running off and hiding due to their inability to defend their opinions.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/news/348675-rather-trump-afraid-of-what-mueller-will-find-out%3famp

A report Wednesday said Mueller (D) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) have teamed up in the ongoing investigation of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Politico reported that the state-wide investigation could help Mueller in the larger probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

[PB the Deplorable]

Well now the flavor of the week news the Demokkkrat lemmings will be orgasming over is the new idea that they will go after Trump on state charges, for example NY State where the presidential pardon has no authority. Dan Rather has said so, so it must be true.

So now for the next few days we're going to be hearing about this approach by Mueller by the entire Demokkkrat media. Until it's established this approach has no precidence and is unconstitutional and it'll be gone by Monday...

The ONLY time the Democrat decision maker elites ever support anything in the Constitution is when it's something they use or may use down the line.  Otherwise they're busy undermining it.

They aren't going to go too far down this path about presidents not having pardon power over actions taken by state prosecutors, because they want to retain that power for a future Democrat president (god forbid).  It's a trial balloon at best, and just more prosecutorial terrorism at worst.

Here's the pardon clause in Article II, Section 2:

''The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.''

''Offenses against the United States'' means crimes in general.  ''Against the United States'' means the entire country and all it's subdivisions, not just the federal level.  This particular witch hunt is supposedly specifically in regard to ''offenses against the United States''.  Can anyone point out where the pardon power is limited to charges brought in federal court?  Given that political power in this country was to be retained at the state level, and the federal government was supposed to be small, and limited to certain specific powers, wouldn't the Framers have said the presidential pardon was limited to charges brought in federal court if that was to be the case?  (The answer is yes).


Typical game playing sophistry by the Democrats.  I encourage them to keep it up.  More people are seeing them for who they really are by the day.

[21st Century Man]

Pat attention, Democrats. My vote since 1992 has been largely motivated by my dislike of  the Democratic Party not because I loved the Republican candidates. You better learn how to appeal to a wider base rather than rely on minorities.

http://theweek.com/articles/721436/trump-toxically-unpopular-still-might-win-2020

[PB the Deplorable]

As for more people seeing the Ds for who they really are by the day, ask Pelosi and Feinstein.  They are alarmed enough to actually speak against Antifa violence.  It's unprecedented for a national Democrat to do anything other than either claim Left wing rioters are peaceful and that it was a tiny handful of people ''from out of town'' who were violent, OR that people were peaceful until they lost control of their emotions or some such shit.

These are the Democrat shock troops.  They perform the same function terrorists fill for Islam.  For elected Democrats to finally publicly speak out against them shows they are concerned about how the party is being perceived.  They don't mean a bit of it of course, but there is a reason they are signaling their Brownshirts to cool it for awhile.  We'll see it that happens, or if the genie is out of the bottle on violent mobs continuing to look for and find new targets to attack

[Kidnostad3]

The ONLY time the Democrat decision maker elites ever support anything in the Constitution is when it's something they use or may use down the line.  Otherwise they're busy undermining it.

They aren't going to go too far down this path about presidents not having pardon power over actions taken by state prosecutors, because they want to retain that power for a future Democrat president (god forbid).  It's a trial balloon at best, and just more prosecutorial terrorism at worst.

Here's the pardon clause in Article II, Section 2:

''The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.''

''Offenses against the United States'' means crimes in general.  ''Against the United States'' means the entire country and all it's subdivisions, not just the federal level.  This particular witch hunt is supposedly specifically in regard to ''offenses against the United States''.  Can anyone point out where the pardon power is limited to charges brought in federal court?  Given that political power in this country was to be retained at the state level, and the federal government was supposed to be small, and limited to certain specific powers, wouldn't the Framers have said the presidential pardon was limited to charges brought in federal court if that was to be the case?  (The answer is yes).


Typical game playing sophistry by the Democrats.  I encourage them to keep it up.  More people are seeing them for who they really are by the day.

A state is a separate sovereign.  POTUS has no authority to grant reprieves/pardons/continuances to anyone endicted or convicted by a state or municipal court.

"Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction?

No.  The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides:  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.  An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.  A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred.  Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state government has created such a board."

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency

By the same token, double jeopardy does not apply across sovereigns i.e. if a state fails to endict or convict an individual on a particular offense, there is no prohibition against the federal government trying the individual on the same charge provided it is also a federal offense and visa-versa.  This means that if Mueller passes on charging or fails to indict anyone subject to his investigation, a state could have a go at it.  This rarely occurs but it is provided for in law. 

[PB the Deplorable]

So Charlie Hebdo Magazine says all Texans affected by the flood are Nazis. 

They should be informed as far as the United States is concerned, next time Islam is trying to hunt down and kill their editers and reporters, they are on their own.

[Gd5150]

These are the Democrat shock troops.  They perform the same function terrorists fill for Islam.  For elected Democrats to finally publicly speak out against them shows they are concerned about how the party is being perceived.  They don't mean a bit of it of course, but there is a reason they are signaling their Brownshirts to cool it for awhile.  We'll see it that happens, or if the genie is out of the bottle on violent mobs continuing to look for and find new targets to attack

The "Demokkkrats Gone Wild" whores will be out soon enough. Probably this weekend since it's a 3 day weekend. Not that matters as they're all unemployed losers living in moms basement.

[Gd5150]

A state is a separate sovereign.  POTUS has no authority to grant reprieves/pardons/continuances to anyone endicted or convicted by a state or municipal court.

"Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction?

No.  The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides:  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.  An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.  A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred.  Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state government has created such a board."

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency

By the same token, double jeopardy does not apply across sovereigns i.e. if a state fails to endict or convict an individual on a particular offense, there is no prohibition against the federal government trying the individual on the same charge provided it is also a federal offense and visa-versa.  This means that if Mueller passes on charging or fails to indict anyone subject to his investigation, a state could have a go at it.  This rarely occurs but it is provided for in law.

The brainless lemmings and the DemokkkratMedia will orgasm over the potential of this for a few days until it's destroyed. Basically any state could go after any President they don't like. It's unpresidented and will most likely never make it out of the dumpster media sources like Vanity Faire. Only the biggest media idiots like Dan Rather already has, and Don Lemon will surely fap to it for a few days on his worthless network.

[bateman]

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/903319412400427008

[PB the Deplorable]

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/903319412400427008

I think kids brought here by their parents years ago, and have grown up as Americans ought to be given a path to citizenship and stay.

What Obama did was first set this program up, then let it be known that any cartel member, any Latin gang member, any criminal could come here, claim to be under 18 (no matter how old they were), and stay.

I'm guessing Trump's action is the best way to deny Obama's criminal disruptors legal status, root them out, and deport them.  Anyone who doesn't care for this action, blame him.

[PB the Deplorable]

A state is a separate sovereign.  POTUS has no authority to grant reprieves/pardons/continuances to anyone endicted or convicted by a state or municipal court.

"Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction?

No.  The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides:  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.  An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.  A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred.  Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state government has created such a board."

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency

By the same token, double jeopardy does not apply across sovereigns i.e. if a state fails to endict or convict an individual on a particular offense, there is no prohibition against the federal government trying the individual on the same charge provided it is also a federal offense and visa-versa.  This means that if Mueller passes on charging or fails to indict anyone subject to his investigation, a state could have a go at it.  This rarely occurs but it is provided for in law.

Ok, I stand corrected, as far as the Jusdice Dept is concerned.  I'll wait to learn what the Federalist Papers, then the Supreme Court if it gets that far, have to say on the subject.  State infractions are one thing, state courts getting involved in federal issues is another.  I very much doubt the Framers thought a legal shell game to evade enumerated powers would be appropriate.  And didn't Marbury v Madison extinguist states powers over the federal government when there is conflict early on? 

Beyond that, practically speaking I just don't see it happening.   

[3OctaveFart]

John McCain, Bitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Corker, and Jeff Flake.  Our team, Ha!  Tell us another one.

Are you suggesting those people are RINOs?

Or are they now RINOs because the wishy-washy ex-Manhattan Democrat in the White House says they're not 'real' Republicans?

[Yorkshire pud]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Stupid obviously doesn't understand why a Purple Heart is awarded. Or anything about the law.

Let's go over this real quick. In order to get a conviction in the court of law you need something called evidence. Unfortunately DemokkkratParty/Media lemming talking points and accusations don't qualify as evidence in the court of law.

Absolutely correct....That's why Mueller is leading the investigation. And I don't know what he's said to you personally, but so far he's said jack to the press. However..the lawyers of the various interesting parties (and interestingly a lawyer of Manifort has been looked into too) are briefing the press about several subpoenas and interviews so far given to Mueller's team; One of whom has prosecuted mafia gang bosses...Successfully.

[Yorkshire pud]

Ok, I stand corrected, as far as the Jusdice Dept is concerned.  I'll wait to learn what the Federalist Papers, then the Supreme Court if it gets that far, have to say on the subject.  State infractions are one thing, state courts getting involved in federal issues is another.  I very much doubt the Framers thought a legal shell game to evade enumerated powers would be appropriate.  And didn't Marbury v Madison extinguist states powers over the federal government when there is conflict early on? 

Beyond that, practically speaking I just don't see it happening.   

Nope..State AG will prosecute State infractions...It just so happens that if for example money laundering went on in say NY, the NY AG would prosecute..

Trump will be really silly to pardon (pre arrest/trial/conviction/sentence) anyone, because they then can't use the fifth in say a federal case...Which means they have nothing to lose, and just might sing sweetly about things Trump might prefer they stay quiet about.

[Up All Night]

Fox News Has Learned President Trump Will End DACA Program As It Currently Exists

TRUMP ENDING OBAMA DREAMER PROGRAM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My0Cp1FhLEA

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/trump-expected-to-announce-end-to-obama-era-daca-official-says.html

[Kidnostad3]

The brainless lemmings and the DemokkkratMedia will orgasm over the potential of this for a few days until it's destroyed. Basically any state could go after any President they don't like. It's unpresidented and will most likely never make it out of the dumpster media sources like Vanity Faire. Only the biggest media idiots like Dan Rather already has, and Don Lemon will surely fap to it for a few days on his worthless network.

I agree.  In today's contentious political/social climate any effort by a state to prosecute under such circumstances would be the equivalent of pissing on a third rail:  A nano second of gratification followed immediately by a violent, life-changing shock for those involved in such an abuse of prosecutorial powers.

[21st Century Man]

Are you suggesting those people are RINOs?

Or are they now RINOs because the wishy-washy ex-Manhattan Democrat in the White House says they're not 'real' Republicans?

That Manhattan ex-Democrat seems to be the only one with the balls to actually correct some bad policies.  He also selected a good man for the Supreme Court.  None of the people I mentioned want to tackle the real problems facing the nation and they aren't worth a plug nickle.  I give credit where it is due.  Reagan was once a Democrat too. 

[3OctaveFart]

I agree they're all bags of shit. So why do they keep winning seats?

Politics is the art of the possible, and also of coercion. Maybe the dipshit should - I know it's a stretch - try to 'win' some of these people over.

[Yorkshire pud]

I agree.  In today's contentious political/social climate any effort by a state to prosecute under such circumstances would be the equivalent of pissing on a third rail:  A nano second of gratification followed immediately by a violent, life-changing shock for those involved in such an abuse of prosecutorial powers.

Ahh so if Trump obstructed justice by having Mueller fired (who is still investigating) but the states AG's took up crimes committed in their states, those AG's would be in the wrong for perusing justice and not Trump for attempting to obstruct it? Gotcha.