Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Where there's smock there's fire
Dec 10, 2018, 8:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: Where there's smock there's fire
Dec 10, 2018, 8:26 AM
|
|
Wish I could find a western movie poster for the Smocking Gun...or at least a spoof of Naked Gun.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: Where there's smock there's fire
Dec 10, 2018, 2:06 PM
|
|
Success!
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Trump is wrong.
Dec 10, 2018, 8:40 AM
|
|
It's not a clearly or simply personal spending. It can be considered a campaign violation if one considers he may have paid the women for their silence in order to protest his POTUS run.
It is not against the law for a candidate to contribute to his campaign so there's nothing to discuss about this except to consider it as a campaign contribution to his campaign. I agree, that's exactly what it is.
So what do we have? A quarter million dollar campaign spending violation. Somebody tell me who has gone to jail or been impeached over campaign spending violations? Obama was busted spending $2 mil and got a ~$300k fine.
I hate defending a liar.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Bringing up Obama in this case is lazy at best and idiotic
Dec 10, 2018, 8:47 AM
|
|
at worst.
Start making a true comparison between the violations committed by the two campaigns and stop when you get to the word pornstar, take a look at yourself in the mirror, and then keep going.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
How about John Edwards?
Dec 10, 2018, 9:00 AM
|
|
Does that make you feel better about your position?
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Are you talking about the John Edwards that
Dec 10, 2018, 9:04 AM
|
|
hasn't held office since the Bush administration and was charged but found not guilty in a court of law?
If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You're right.
Dec 10, 2018, 9:08 AM
|
|
It was radically different even though he paid hush money. He wasn't elected POTUS and didn't have the protection of the constitution so he was indicted.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22429]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31322
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The Constitution say a President can't be indicted?
Dec 10, 2018, 9:27 AM
|
|
What part are you referring to?
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Separation of powers.
Dec 10, 2018, 9:38 AM
|
|
It would be an usurpation of congressional power for the judicial branch to provide for a sitting POTUS to be indicted thereby removing him from office. Only Congress has that power and it takes 2/3rds of the senate to remove him. Best of luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22429]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31322
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL! Even you in your infinite love for all things Trump
Dec 10, 2018, 9:43 AM
|
|
know what a load that is that you just wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
See Chuck, that's why I ignore most of your post.
Dec 10, 2018, 10:01 AM
|
|
When a legitimate argument is presented you resort to insult and humiliation and reveal your ignorance of the subject. That's all the refuge of one who is so emotion he can't give consideration to reason.
There is no way an investigator and a grand jury which isn't elected is going to be given the power to remove an official which is elected by the people. It's just not going to happen.
If he's removed from office Pence will grant him immunity just like Ford granted to Nixon.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22429]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31322
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Your suggestion that ONE MAN is above the law is a false
Dec 10, 2018, 10:16 AM
|
|
premise with NO Constitutional mention of such. You said there was and it simply is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Separation of powers.
Dec 10, 2018, 10:07 AM
[ in reply to Separation of powers. ] |
|
True. He can pardon himself, give direct orders to protect himself, and fire anyone trying to go after him. All of that would lead to his impeachment. Then as a private citizen they could go after him again. That's according to a federal prosecutor today.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Why a pardon when there's no indictment?
Dec 10, 2018, 10:11 AM
|
|
From what would he need a pardon? There's no way an investigator and a grand jury will be allowed to indict a sitting POTUS. That would be usurping congressional power by the judiciary.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22429]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31322
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Your suggestion that one man is above the law
Dec 10, 2018, 10:17 AM
|
|
has no Constitutional foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Why a pardon when there's no indictment?
Dec 10, 2018, 10:17 AM
[ in reply to Why a pardon when there's no indictment? ] |
|
Federal prosecutor said today that he could be indicted. I have read both though. Most say he can't be indicted. The prosecutor today said he could be indicted, but that it would be a waste of time and would just be symbolic. He said it would help lead to his impeachment. After he was out of office prosecutors would decide if they wanted to pursue charges and they likely would never. Impeachment is really all that would ever happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Why a pardon when there's no indictment?
Dec 10, 2018, 5:18 PM
[ in reply to Why a pardon when there's no indictment? ] |
|
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a sitting President from being indicted.
Being indicted doesn't prohibit the Senate from holding an impeachment trial.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Separation of powers.
Dec 11, 2018, 9:15 AM
[ in reply to Separation of powers. ] |
|
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the impeachment and removal process given to the Congress (who’d have thunk it?).
Impeachment is a purely political process. Indictments are a criminal process. Theoretically, an indictment would inform Congress that the sitting president probably isn’t fit for office and should be removed. Of course, that assumes that there is a Congress that hasn’t shirked its Constitutional duties of checking the power of the president.
It appears possible, since the Constitution makes no mention of indicting the president, that he could be indicted, tried, and found guilty and still not be removed from office in the event of a derelict Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [138523]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63984
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Obama wasn't "busted" spending anything.
Dec 10, 2018, 8:50 AM
[ in reply to Trump is wrong. ] |
|
Those were reporting violations, i.e., not reporting contributions within the mandated 48 hour window, and had NOTHING to do with spending campaign funds, and were all squarely the responsibility of some low-level campaign worker who job it was to fill out forms. Those were civil charges. Trump's campaign violations? The other "C" word.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I was loose with the language..
Dec 10, 2018, 8:59 AM
|
|
but campaign violations are nothing more than campaign violations.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [138523]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63984
Joined: 10/22/00
|
No, not really, because it's been a LONG while since we've
Dec 10, 2018, 9:02 AM
|
|
seen actual criminal charges in campaign finance, particularly in Presidential campaigns.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: No, not really, because it's been a LONG while since we've
Dec 10, 2018, 9:03 AM
|
|
What's the charge?
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Trump is wrong.
Dec 10, 2018, 12:59 PM
[ in reply to Trump is wrong. ] |
|
It's not a clearly or simply personal spending. It can be considered a campaign violation if one considers he may have paid the women for their silence in order to protest his POTUS run.
It is not against the law for a candidate to contribute to his campaign so there's nothing to discuss about this except to consider it as a campaign contribution to his campaign. I agree, that's exactly what it is.
So what do we have? A quarter million dollar campaign spending violation. Somebody tell me who has gone to jail or been impeached over campaign spending violations? Obama was busted spending $2 mil and got a ~$300k fine.
I hate defending a liar.
Ummm, if a candidate for President allows someone else to pay hush money, with the promise he'll pay them back, then it's not a "personal transaction". It's illegal campaign financing. David ###### paid the Bunny $150 K. Cohen paid the pron star $130,000. Trump said publcally that he knew nothing about either.
He can't now claim that he was just donating to his own campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Trump is wrong.
Dec 10, 2018, 5:15 PM
[ in reply to Trump is wrong. ] |
|
It's not a clearly or simply personal spending. It can be considered a campaign violation if one considers he may have paid the women for their silence in order to protest his POTUS run.
It is not against the law for a candidate to contribute to his campaign so there's nothing to discuss about this except to consider it as a campaign contribution to his campaign. I agree, that's exactly what it is.
So what do we have? A quarter million dollar campaign spending violation. Somebody tell me who has gone to jail or been impeached over campaign spending violations? Obama was busted spending $2 mil and got a ~$300k fine.
I hate defending a liar.
I think the intellectual backflips you do to defend Trump are pretty interesting, but they're not entirely accurate.
Cohen has already pleaded guilty of the crime. He paid Stormy, not Trump. That's an illegal campaign contribution. Even if Trump reimbursed him, it's still a crime. Further, Trump is also guilty of paying someone to commit a crime.
You can argue that campaign contributions aren't 'that bad' of a crime. But you can't argue that's it's not one.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [33420]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32208
Joined: 2/20/04
|
Hoping there's at least one Jounger who gets this
Dec 10, 2018, 9:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Hoping there's at least one Jounger who gets this
Dec 10, 2018, 10:08 AM
|
|
The Mask?
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17380
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Sssssssssssssssssmockin’!!!***
Dec 10, 2018, 10:20 AM
|
|
I get it now. It would have been easier if it looked like that's what he was saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [98017]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65069
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Re: Where there's scok, there's BS***
Dec 10, 2018, 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Where there's smock there's fire
Dec 10, 2018, 4:55 PM
|
|
I can't wait till he tweets about his favorite drink, Diet ####.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
|
|