Fat hurts wrote:
There are also limits to how much Trump can prevent him from saying under executive privilege.
Executive privilege does not cover coercion or obstruction of justice.
Fat hurts wrote:
There are also limits to how much Trump can prevent him from saying under executive privilege.
Executive privilege does not cover coercion or obstruction of justice.
Fat hurts wrote:
eric a blair wrote:well my point is that Mueller is building a case. He's already aware of several incidents of Trump probably obstructing justice. If Trump does it again, it firms up that case and makes it more tryable.
I don't see how blocking Comey firms up an obstruction case. If he can legally block him by claiming executive privilege then it has nothing to do with obstruction. It doesn't help Mueller at all.
maybe you're right. I don't know.
I did just read that there is nothing Trump could do to stop Mueller from talking to comey. Because exec priviledge does not extend to covering up crimes. So there is no way short of bullet to stop Comey from telling what he knows.
more I read about it, the more I think the exec priviledge thing is not going to happen. The main reason is that Comey WANTS to testify.
EP is invoked to stop someone from being FORCED to testify against her will. But that's not the case here. Comey wants to testify.
reason number two is the first amendment - comey is a former official. He can say what he wants to say, as long as it isn't classified.
So the trump admin may try to stop comey, but I don't think they can.
The ultimate test for Trump supporters:
Do you think Comey should be stopped from testifying due to executive privilege?
well....... wrote:
The ultimate test for Trump supporters:
Do you think Comey should be stopped from testifying due to executive privilege?
Your answer will have to wait until Trump makes a decision, at which point his supporters will attempt to justify it.
bigtime wrote:
well....... wrote:The ultimate test for Trump supporters:
Do you think Comey should be stopped from testifying due to executive privilege?
Your answer will have to wait until Trump makes a decision, at which point his supporters will attempt to justify it.
Just maybe some patriotic Trump supporter might post before Trump's decision on this and state that in the interest of truth and the country its important to hear what Comey has to say.
Possibility?
eric a blair wrote:
It is truly difficult to comprehend the amount of shlt Donald J Trump is full of. He continuously shoves more BS than I've ever seen outside of a totalitarian nation.
Trumpers, really? Really? You want to defend this piece of garbage as he tears apart the truth? Do you have any shame at all?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/06/02/the-energy-202-trump-s-paris-speech-needs-a-serious-fact-check/59302a21e9b69b2fb981dc14/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_energy202-920a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.99a06b63baa3
Yes, I will defend what he did. They article you posted is really not well written. Clearly written by an amateur and not of good quality. It claims to disprove what Trump said and does not such thing.
It is a mess of thoughts jumbled together. One piece contradicts another.
Consider this:
===============================
"Paris already gives countries tremendous flexibility, and no penalties," said Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental law at Columbia and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "Trump obviously didn't read the Paris agreement, and his statement was written by people who willfully misrepresented its contents — his staff or their lobbyist friends."
Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris accord did not legally bind nations to emissions targets. The only thing keeping a nation in check was pressure from its international peers. Under the agreement, the United States could miss an emissions goal and face no penalty. It could reset that goal, too, with no formal consequence. It's unclear what other concessions the United States could gain from a renegotiation.
==============================
It basically says that nations could not whatever they want. And reset whenever they don't meet their stated goals. Why should I continue reading after this?
Then it says this:
==============================
Again, the agreement does not bind any nation to any emissions target. What China did choose to do under the agreement is have its carbon emissions "peak" by 2030 before then declining. The world accepted that longer leash for China and other developing nations to let them use fossil-fuel energy to promote greater economic growth.
=============================
I see this crap and that proves exactly what Trump is saying, yet the headlines insinuates otherwise. What a load of crap.
How about this other load of crap:
==================================
The Green Climate Fund contains $10.3 billion not $100 billion. And the U.S. share comes from the Treasury, not any pool or money set aside for anti-terrorism purposes.
===================================
If you go to the green climate fund website:
Responding to the climate challenge requires collective action from all countries, cities, businesses, and private citizens. Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.
How much more nonsense are you going to post here?
itbaddude wrote:
How much more nonsense are you going to post here?
You posted 5x the amount of nonsense that you complained was posted.
Mr. Lonely Weight-Gaining-Old-Man getting ready for some Clinton-era "fun" in the oval office.
Meanwhile... Those May jobs numbers were really soft. Oooops.
The chief plutocrat HAS blame someone else for all the recessionary things he's already done.
Of course, he doesn't understand his own actions cause it. He's your typical plutocrat.
How's that wall going? Mexico paying yet? No? Huh.
Yeah, ask Hillary and Bill about that you mindless twerp! Coercion and O of J were their main platforms on running!
Unprivileged wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:There are also limits to how much Trump can prevent him from saying under executive privilege.
Executive privilege does not cover coercion or obstruction of justice.
Meanwhile, Presivfefe Trump is forcing his secret service to "investigate" Kathy Griffin's "death-threat" against him. . . . A 55+ plus, 110 pound woman is so dangerous against a 270 pound man.
Meanwhile, Trump allows his "loyal" fanbase to make numerous death-threats against Kathy Griffin.
I agree with others: Trump investigation is nothing but a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from Russia and other misdeeds . . . such as granting an unlimited ethics waiver to Steve Bannon that allows Bannon to continue "discussing issues" with Breibert.
How Bannon Got Trump’s Blessing To Keep Control Of Breitbart Message — While Working At White House
Got you head shoved up you arse quite deep, Trumptard.
ninerrrenin wrote:
Yeah, ask Hillary and Bill about that you mindless twerp!
Unprivileged wrote:Executive privilege does not cover coercion or obstruction of justice.
RUSSIA!
You forgot: BREITBART!
No, but you've obviously had yours stuck up yours since birth. Your parents are pretty dumb, eh? Bad genes suck, I feel for ya as obviously you condone murder (no, snopes got it wrong).https://www.thoughtco.com/the-clinton-body-count-4056792(read number 27 you nutjob and how many died who tried to talk)https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/08/26/the-boys-on-the-tracks-are-back
Unprivileged wrote:
Got you head shoved up you arse quite deep, Trumptard.
ninerrrenin wrote:Yeah, ask Hillary and Bill about that you mindless twerp!
ninerrrenin wrote:
YES, I've obviously had MY HEAD stuck up MY ASS since birth.
So true.
ninerrrenin wrote:
Yeah, ask Hillary and Bill about that you mindless twerp! Coercion and O of J were their main platforms on running!
Unprivileged wrote:Executive privilege does not cover coercion or obstruction of justice.
Right and they have a monopoly on the MSM which was forced to protect them... we've heard this all before now go bad to reading the Drudge Report.
Btw - 1999 called and said they want their soiled GOPers back
How Bannon Got Trump’s Blessing To Keep Control Of Breitbart Message — While Working At White House
Trump grants Bannon an unlimited ethics waiver.
mental ward patient wrote:
RUSSIA!
Mr. President, you are a genius. I have no idea how you were able to so stanchly campaign against the swamp, and within 6 months convince the forgotten man to completely evolve their views to promoting filling up the swamp.
Your brilliance will never be forgotten. Now let's kill the rest of those unions and get the top tax bracket down (and repeal the estate tax like you've proposed, thereby benefiting the top 0.2% of us).
Don't worry, there's no rush. The forgotten man will remain emotional for the foreseeable future. And when the scam comes to the surface, no biggy. We have an elite-funded campaign ready remind them that the libstoopids hate America and Jesus.