LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[posting personal info including real names, locations, emails, private messages or other correspondence, other identifying information from offsite is prohibited per our forum guidelines]
 
[posting personal info including real names, locations, emails, private messages or other correspondence, other identifying information from offsite is prohibited per our forum guidelines]
 
[posting personal info including real names, locations, emails, private messages or other correspondence, other identifying information from offsite is prohibited per our forum guidelines]
 
Last edited:
Rightguide said:
Poor Luk, ground into dust with a vengeance, under Karma's great heel. :eek::(


Here Lies Luk

Blown From The World In May
By A Bitter Gust From Januari
Click to expand...

I didn’t know you were a poet😂
You just sterilized his thoughts on that shit.
 
Leave it to the right-wing racist dipshits to defend the liying cuntwaffle who spilled their secrets (looking at you Que) in PM, posted PMs, broke the rules multiple times, and turned her back on her friends who use to defend her.

An excellent judge of people you dummies are. :D

Your blind hate of Obama and Luk has turned you into what you are today.
 
Last edited:
Luk said:
Leave it to the right-wing racist dipshits to defend the liying cuntwaffle who spilled their secrets (looking at you Que) in PM, posted PMs, broke the rules multiple times, and turned her back on her friends who used to defend her.

An excellent judge of people you dummies are. :D

Your blind hate of Obama and Luk has turned you into what you are today.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^
This shows all the symptoms of a sterilized mind.
 
Rightguide said:
It's pitiful the lack of aptitude on the left in any subject matter they bring forth. :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

It's the same vicious cycle.

Impeach Trump. Find a reason and impeach him. First's it's Russia Russia Russia, then it's obstruction, then it's emoluments, then taxes, then Russia, then obstruction, and now we're back to emoluments.

The emoluments clause has never been litigated. Guess what, now it's being litigated. There's no support for the D's contention, but the court has no legal precedent to make a decision with either. So they have no choice but to let the parties flesh it out and then decide.

Yet, on the other hand, there IS at least some precedent which establishes that the Emoluments Clause doesn't include the President. There's not much and it's possible that the various other acts which Congress has created changed the intent behind the clause, but again, that's something which needs fleshed out.

The disfunctionals on the board seem to think that because the court wants to be fully informed on the subject automatically means Trump loses and gets impeached.

Which is often referred to as putting the cart before the horse. Not that this is surprising, they did the same over the travel ban. File with the court, claim victory over Trump, then quietly cry in a corner after the courts rule against them. This could be another chapter in the same sad saga.
 
HisArpy said:
Read the linky I posted. It's actually a very good analysis and concludes that the Emoluments Clause was never intended to include the President based on text, related and supporting documents, and historical events.
Click to expand...


Just wondering: were any of these folks now magically announcing that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to the president on record as saying this prior to November 2016?


The idea that the Framers had an obsession with the potential for foreign influence on American government, but somehow exempted the president just because, is not serious in any way; and if we didn't have a Republican president at the present time, this would be universally understood.
 
HisArpy said:
Read the linky I posted. It's actually a very good analysis and concludes that the Emoluments Clause was never intended to include the President based on text, related and supporting documents, and historical events.
Click to expand...

And you're saying that with a straight face?

Seriously?


Btw...those were rhetorical questions.


*insert derpy class stoopid here *
 
HisArpy said:
It's the same vicious cycle.

Impeach Trump. Find a reason and impeach him. First's it's Russia Russia Russia, then it's obstruction, then it's emoluments, then taxes, then Russia, then obstruction, and now we're back to emoluments.

The emoluments clause has never been litigated. Guess what, now it's being litigated. There's no support for the D's contention, but the court has no legal precedent to make a decision with either. So they have no choice but to let the parties flesh it out and then decide.

Yet, on the other hand, there IS at least some precedent which establishes that the Emoluments Clause doesn't include the President. There's not much and it's possible that the various other acts which Congress has created changed the intent behind the clause, but again, that's something which needs fleshed out.

The disfunctionals on the board seem to think that because the court wants to be fully informed on the subject automatically means Trump loses and gets impeached.

Which is often referred to as putting the cart before the horse. Not that this is surprising, they did the same over the travel ban. File with the court, claim victory over Trump, then quietly cry in a corner after the courts rule against them. This could be another chapter in the same sad saga.
Click to expand...

Check this out. In Obama's first two years he had two nationwide injunctions ordered by federal judges. Compare that to the 37 injunctions issued against Trump in the same time period. A clear indication as far as can see of political obstruction of the Executive by an activist judiciary, not supported by law, in view of the fact that so many have been reversed by higher courts.

Justice Thomas and now the AG have brought up the complete lack of judicial authority for district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions as an issue that has to be faced head on, and the need for constraints on that claimed authority. But I don't see this Democrat controlled congress going after their most cherished weapon. The SCOTUS might have to do it instead in reaction to all of the headaches it creates for them.:)
 
HisArpy said:
Read the linky I posted. It's actually a very good analysis and concludes that the Emoluments Clause was never intended to include the President based on text, related and supporting documents, and historical events.
Click to expand...

These folks aren't about scholarship just talking points they inherit from the media. I posted the same analysis and got a similar kind of reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

adrina
Kremlin confirms Trump sent Russia Covid-19 tests, after former president denied Bob Woodward claim
3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
3K
Lance_Castro
Lance_Castro
Rightguide
Mueller Scope Memo Has Been Declassified
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Rightguide
Rightguide
Talk_Radio
Confused performance by Mueller raises questions about handling of investigation
Replies
9
Views
621
69johnmichaels
6
Rightguide
Adam Schiff In Panic Mode
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
hogjack
hogjack
ll74
In a Win for Transparency, Court Rules Russia Memo Released
Replies
3
Views
190
Rotadom
Rotadom
Back
Top