Trump is finally...

[Rightguide]

That's the issue Trey Gowdy point to.

And a host of others as well.

 

[Rightguide]

BTW, has Trump started WWIII yet? Just wonderin' if Hal is going to make through all the thumb sucking apprehension. You okay Hal?

 

[cowslinger64]

Awww...poor cheetolini, so misunderstood...and his personal lawyer speaks out

AG Barr says nationwide rulings are hampering Trump's agenda

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ag-barr-...pering-trumps-agenda-010026075--politics.html

 

[bbx56]

Awww...poor cheetolini, so misunderstood...and his personal lawyer speaks out

AG Barr says nationwide rulings are hampering Trump's agenda

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ag-barr-...pering-trumps-agenda-010026075--politics.html

fuck you, NIGGER

Flashback: Eric Holder Called Himself Obama’s “Wingman”

where was HARVY IRMA OBAMA when millions were hurting?

 

[jomar]

Awww...poor cheetolini, so misunderstood...and his personal lawyer speaks out

AG Barr says nationwide rulings are hampering Trump's agenda

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ag-barr-...pering-trumps-agenda-010026075--politics.html

LOL...once again, Trump plays the "blame you for what I do" card: At a re-election rally earlier this month, Trump railed against "activist judges who issue nationwide injunctions based on their personal beliefs," which he said "undermine democracy and threaten the rule of law."

 

[jomar]

It's an inconvenient truth so a-a just ignores it and then says it didn't happen.

Which is typical for the political narrative from the Left these days. Lie about the truth as long and as often as possible, even when it's obvious that they're lying and they know they're lying.

You realize this is the actual definition of Trump's SOP, right?

 

[Rightguide]

LOL...once again, Trump plays the "blame you for what I do" card: At a re-election rally earlier this month, Trump railed against "activist judges who issue nationwide injunctions based on their personal beliefs," which he said "undermine democracy and threaten the rule of law."

Have you ever heard of the "political question doctrine?" look it up.

Where in the Constitution is the power for a federal district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction on anything? Clarence Thomas has been looking for it and can't find it.

 

[jomar]

Have you ever heard of the "political question doctrine?" look it up.

Where in the Constitution is the power for a federal district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction on anything? Clarence Thomas has been looking for it and can't find it.

You missed the point. was it on purpose?

 

[HisArpy]

Oh yay, another person who doesn't know what the words "some aspects" mean.
And you call yourself a lawyer. LMAO.

You are an amazing person. Talented beyond belief. There is no other person here who can match your abilities.

You see, on the one side of your mouth you say things that the other side of your tongue completely disputes. That takes talent.

The beyond belief part comes in when you have to face yourself in the mirror in the morning without blushing or crying in shame.

 

[icanhelp1]

Have you ever heard of the "political question doctrine?" look it up.

Where in the Constitution is the power for a federal district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction on anything? Clarence Thomas has been looking for it and can't find it.

It's 12 to 2 in comparison to the previous admin, I can't understand why SCOTUS doesn't intervene and reign in these activist federal judges.

Trump 12
Obama 2

Tell me there's no agenda.

 

[phrodeau]

Have you ever heard of the "political question doctrine?" look it up.

Where in the Constitution is the power for a federal district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction on anything? Clarence Thomas has been looking for it and can't find it.

Has he tried Wikipedia?

District courts get their powers from Congress.

 

[icanhelp1]

Has he tried Wikipedia?

District courts get their powers from Congress.

Article III

 

[Que]

Has he tried Wikipedia?

District courts get their powers from Congress.

That is very bootstraps. If Congress can't get what they want legislatively they can just Empower a judge to override the executive branch?

Yeah, I don't think that is how seperation of powers works. It's also not something that you would consider even remotely defensible if Obama was President and the Republicans had Congress.

Except that it's constitutionally stupid I'm sure that the Republicans could have found a Texas judge to issue a nationwide injunction getting rid of DACA and the ACA.

 

[Wrong Element]

Except that it's constitutionally stupid I'm sure that the Republicans could have found a Texas judge to issue a nationwide injunction getting rid of DACA and the ACA.

Uh, a Texas-based district court judge actually did rule that the ACA was unconstitutional.

 

[icanhelp1]

Uh, a Texas-based district court judge actually did rule that the ACA was unconstitutional.

The mandate was found unconstitutional after tax reform. The mandate could no longer be considered a tax.

 

[Kantarii]

You are an amazing person. Talented beyond belief. There is no other person here who can match your abilities.

You see, on the one side of your mouth you say things that the other side of your tongue completely disputes. That takes talent.

The beyond belief part comes in when you have to face yourself in the mirror in the morning without blushing or crying in shame.

That’s putting it mildly - very mildly.

 

[HisArpy]

That’s putting it mildly - very mildly.

Well I never was one for o'er fulsome praise. Purple prose is about as far as I'll go in that regard.

 

[about_average]

Comey's exchange with senator Collins also states; " I didn't use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him ( president Trump ) about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true". It was later that he told Trump he was not under investigation. Later on he briefed that "some parts" of the dossier. The question to be asked is, at what point does the dossier become an unusable source for a FISA. If any part of a document is unverified then the document itself is subject to scrutiny. There is no doubt Comey selected his words carefully and that it leave it unclear whether he meant parts or whole. Also leave the validity of the document itself up for scrutiny. Some parts were questioned in a closed senate session due to sensitive nature of the document.

Yeah, and he also said in the same testimony

The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

What people seem to ignore is that you can have parts of a document that are unverified and parts that aren't.
Also missed is the fact that probably cause is the criteria for a warrant. If all information were already verified they likely wouldn't even need a warrant, they'd already have the evidence.

At least you recognize that he wasn't talking about the entire dossier. ndt at least a few on the right understand what the phrase "some aspects" means.
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/01/02/comey-really-testify-entire-steele-dossier-unverified/

Unlike RG and Arpy.

 

[about_average]

You are an amazing person. Talented beyond belief. There is no other person here who can match your abilities.

You see, on the one side of your mouth you say things that the other side of your tongue completely disputes. That takes talent.

The beyond belief part comes in when you have to face yourself in the mirror in the morning without blushing or crying in shame.

It's not my fault you don't understand what the words "some aspects" mean.

I've never said anything other than "some aspects" means the same thing as "some parts", and Comey clearly said "some aspects."

Also not my fault you try to cover your ignorance, or purposefully disingenuous posts, with insults. A sure sign of someone who can't argue the facts.

 

[about_average]

That is very bootstraps. If Congress can't get what they want legislatively they can just Empower a judge to override the executive branch?

Why not? Trump runs to the courts all the time. And more often than not when the people he's going to court against haven't broken the law. Trump has a long history of using the courts as a weapon.

Yet people are upset that the Trump administration breaks the law and it's taken to court.
Most recently with the House Ways and Means subpoena for Trumps tax returns. The law clearly states all the committee has to do is ask for them in writing.

(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Not a word in there about "may" or "if he decides he wants to."

 

[about_average]

That’s putting it mildly - very mildly.

And of course the peanut gallery chimes in. Feeling overwhelmed by your BS constantly being shown to be exactly what it is, BS?

 

[HisArpy]

It's not my fault you don't understand what the words "some aspects" mean.

I've never said anything other than "some aspects" means the same thing as "some parts", and Comey clearly said "some aspects."

Also not my fault you try to cover your ignorance, or purposefully disingenuous posts, with insults. A sure sign of someone who can't argue the facts.

Oh the ironing!!!

*edited to add*

Freaking speel chicker.

 

[Kantarii]

Oh the ironing!!!

*edited to add*

Freaking speel chicker.

I don’t even bother to read that dude’s moronic shit anymore.
No one in their right mind wants to “argue” - debate maybe.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah, and he also said in the same testimonyWhat people seem to ignore is that you can have parts of a document that are unverified and parts that aren't.
Also missed is the fact that probably cause is the criteria for a warrant. If all information were already verified they likely wouldn't even need a warrant, they'd already have the evidence.

At least you recognize that he wasn't talking about the entire dossier. ndt at least a few on the right understand what the phrase "some aspects" means.
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/01/02/comey-really-testify-entire-steele-dossier-unverified/

Unlike RG and Arpy.

The problem that arises is the FISC was not told what part was verified and what part wasn't.

 

[phrodeau]

The problem that arises is the FISC was not told what part was verified and what part wasn't.

Who says? Link, please.