Trump's Presidency IV: Stupefaction Jackson

He can do that because, to continue the metaphor, he does own the casino. He's still those intelligence community people's boss.

 

A good photo op, wasn't it?

 

Playing blackjack in a poker game....sounds about right.

 

Us not drinking the kool-aid saw right through this and knew he chose Indiana because Pence was still there as Gov.

Trumpkin is trying to tell me that the CEO will be gone in 8 months for going against the wishes of the president! They really don't stop.

 

The fact that you keep going to Rick Wilson for your future predictions and "inside info" says a lot about the bs you spread on here.

 

His Queeg moment may not be far off.

 

Nixon was a Quaker.

That is its brilliance.

the one person named has the last name Warholic. Which works as satire two ways.

 

And reading up on Watergate, Erlichman, Egil Krogh and HR Haldeman were Christian Scientists. For whatever that's worth.

 

Which is not to say they were either Christian or scientific...

 

I'll take a competent agnostic/atheist over a sneaky Christian any day.

 

You know that, I know that. Everyone says that. I'm just the best.

 

Shot shot by the CIA?
Suicide...Ha!

 

Queeg was a WWII hero, even been torpedoed before he went Schizo.

Trump is a pansy wasted draft dodger who has been Schizoid since childhood.

 

Wonder what the resident Trump supporters think about this...

“We had a mix of Trump supporters and Clinton supporters at the factory, I’d say. The ones that really supported him are quiet right now. Some of them got let go yesterday, too.

“We talked about Trump on the job, after the election. You could always tell who the Trump supporters were because they never participated in the conversation. It was about even, blacks and whites, for Trump. Also, some of them wore the hats. Not anymore, though.

“Personally, I think the President is a ‘rubber room’ politician. He’s crazy. He needs a straitjacket. He’s in there for his self. He’s not in there to help America keep jobs. Because if he was we wouldn’t be in the predicament that we’re in every day. He keeps howling, ‘Make America great.’ But he can’t make America great if all the jobs are leaving the States and going to Mexico. People can’t support their families.​

​

 

Well someone sounds like liberal elite. Go to college and get oppressive loan.

In all seriousness, they failed themselves and the union failed them in that aspect. I mean have a GED program for God sakes!

 

Wanted to post this interesting article and ask a few dumb questions of the legal experts here.

"It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president's official duties."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/...-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html?referer=

This is pretty contrary to the prevailing discussions of read and heard.

Another important point is raised in the article by this:

"If there is no recourse against the president, if he cannot be prosecuted for violating the criminal laws, he will be above the law."

I know this has been touched on here, and I'm sure I don't fully understand, but what I think I keep reading is that basically he can only be impeached based on any federal proceedings. Any criminal charges would only happen through violations of state laws, i.e., the ongoing investigation by the NY AG.

So again, it's possible (or likely) I'm misunderstanding the nuances of this, but if that's the case, this would seem to make the president above the law on a federal level, with the only potential punishment being that he wouldn't be president anymore. Which seems like a pretty soft punishment if Trump is guilty of any combination of the things that he seems to have done/is doing (collusion with Russia, the cover up, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.). Which means the focus of the article makes sense.

I welcome any informed opinion that helps make these conflicting conclusions more clear.

 

"If" Trump decides to fire Mueller, here's some of what he's looking at, and more info on his ability to pardon himself and others. Although I don't see much real concerns in Trump for "others"

Trump Wants to Take on Bob Mueller? Good Luck With That.

The president wants to go to war with the man investigating him. That’s a terrible idea.

By Bradley P. Moss

July 21, 2017

1. Yes, Trump Could Pardon Himself. Then All Hell Would Break Loose

The news that President Trump’s legal team is already evaluating the scope of his pardon authority, as well as steps that can be taken to push back on the breadth of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, rippled across social media Thursday night.

Of particular interest was that Mueller’s potential inquiry into the president’s financial dealings (and his tax returns) has apparently so incensed President Trump and resulted in a warning that the former FBI director should not cross that proverbial “red line.”

{Mod edit - excerpts only, thanks.}

 

He cannot be tried while he is President-- I think that would apply to state and local courts as well, though there seems to be some disagreement about that.

Impeachment is for the removal of a President in that or some other circumstances.

Once impeached and convicted and no longer President, he/she can be arrested and indicted and tried and punished. Ford pardoned Nixon because he would surely have been moved to the indicted co-conspirator bench did he not.

There also seems to be some argument that he/she can be charged during his/her term with crimes committed before inauguration? But the rule of thumb, as articulated by one Ms. Pelosi at the time of Clinton's impeachment, is that "impeachment is for the protection of the nation not the punishment of the President." Part of that protection is to prevent nuisance prosecutions of a sitting President, as there would surely have been against Madison, Lincoln, FDR, probably others. Part of it is to provide for his removal for prosecution in the case of real crimes, and part is to provide for his removal if he endangers the nation through arguably non-criminal behavior.

 

True -- more looking at it from him going full crazy when the pressure gets too high. If you've got a better example, knock yourself out.