Goukosan 2,249 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Sublyminal said: No, he can't look at the OLC memo again. It clearly stated that to indict a sitting president via an unelected grand jury would cause catastrophic issues. Trump has already been named as an unidentified co-conspirator "Individual one". Once they work through the whether a sitting president can be indicted or not...that can change in a heartbeat without needing impeachment. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Sublyminal said: No, he can't look at the OLC memo again. It clearly stated that to indict a sitting president via an unelected grand jury would cause catastrophic issues. Quote The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal 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,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.” Yes, he can. And nobody has challenged the Starr memo. In fact, i think that Mueller's office had petitioned that the memo be released because it serves their court case. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Sublyminal 177 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Goukosan said: The investigation already has more convictions and indictments than water gate and in a shorter time frame. Most corrupt administration in US history. Yes I know how it works... that's why im letting it play out. Truthfully I don't care either way but what people don't realize is Pence is 100x worse. I'm calling it now though if Trump is removed. America will have its second civil war. Link to post Share on other sites
Sublyminal 177 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, jehurey said: Yes, he can. And nobody has challenged the Starr memo. In fact, i think that Mueller's office had petitioned that the memo be released because it serves their court case. Not one person gave a shit about Ken Starr. A memo is not a law and until a law is passed via both houses and signed by the president and upheld by the SCOTUS then that is all it will continue to be, just the rankings of Ken Starr a verifiable piece of shit. Link to post Share on other sites
Spicalicious 128 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, McWicked said: First smart decision you've ever made on this forum, Deeno. We're one week into 2019. I've told you a hundred times. 2019 is going to be a very hard year for you. Stop being a fucking retard Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Sublyminal said: Truthfully I don't care either way but what people don't realize is Pence is 100x worse. I'm calling it now though if Trump is removed. America will have its second civil war. Fatass Trumptards aren't going to do jackshit. They will do what they have ALREADY been doing. Whining and complaining that everybody is out to get them. Here's a bit of news for you. There are only a handful of people who have not been interviewed by the Mueller investigation: -Trump jr -Ivanka -Eric -Jared Kushner -and Mike Pence. Paul Manafort is single-handedly responsible for having Mike Pence meet with Trump to get him as his running mate. And Mike Pence is responsible for the overseeing the entire Transition Team, which is where Gen. Michael Flynn committed his crimes. If you know anything about the Feds investigating mob families, the people who aren't interviewed are usually considered the main targets of the investigation. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Thread backfire Link to post Share on other sites
Spicalicious 128 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, McWicked said: Sweety, this thread is about Manafort. He's already been taken into court, tried, and found guilty, and then on top of that he's been found to have lied to the FBI. "PWEEASSEE STAHP PICKING ON TWUMP!!! " - You. If you want Trump to stop being picked on, well... The fact the he lied to the FBI does not implicate trump. He's gone to jail for lying to congress and that's about it.. nothing more. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Sublyminal said: Not one person gave a shit about Ken Starr. A memo is not a law and until a law is passed via both houses and signed by the president and upheld by the SCOTUS then that is all it will continue to be, just the rankings of Ken Starr a verifiable piece of shit. The memo is the legal position of the Department of Justice. It interprets the law. It can most DEFINITELY be used as a reference document should the constitutionality of indicting a sitting president be challenged in court. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Sublyminal 177 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, S#$@%^i said: The fact the he lied to the FBI does not implicate trump. He's gone to jail for lying to congress and that's about it.. nothing more. Lets remember what happened to the last person convicted of lying to the FBI. 14 whole days in jail. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Vini said: Thread backfire Vini trying so hard. LOL He thinks people were able to derail the thread. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Sublyminal 177 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, jehurey said: The memo is the legal position of the Department of Justice. It interprets the law. It can most DEFINITELY be used as a reference document should the constitutionality of indicting a sitting president be challenged in court. Just because it was Ken Starr' interpretation doesn't mean shit. The DOJ serves at the leisure of the president, until a law is put into place then as stated it's nothing more than the idiotic ramblings of a pos. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. House 3,371 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, McWicked said: The 17 known Trump-related investigations https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-federal-state-local-investigations-602d2e21-b087-454f-b887-57f2f5b4dc55.html This whole thing started with one investigation into Trump's Campaign and its Russian contacts. It's now 17 separate investigations spread out across state and federal agencies. Keep playing ignorant, Deeno. 2019 is going to be a very stressful year for you. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/manafort-says-any-misstatements-unintentional-court-filing-idUSKCN1P21ZV MICHAEL FLYNN MICHAEL COHEN PAUL MANAFORT RICK GATES KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS SAMUEL PATTEN RICHARD PINEDO 12 RUSSIAN GRU (re: the Russian CIA) OFFICERS 13 RUSSIAN NATIONALS 3 RUSSIAN ENTITIES ALEX VAN DER ZWAAN I guess we can sum you up with this: So it's not taken to court yet, just investigations? Gotcha. Call us up when you have a verdict. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sublyminal said: Just because it was Ken Starr' interpretation doesn't mean shit. The DOJ serves at the leisure of the president, until a law is put into place then as stated it's nothing more than the idiotic ramblings of a pos. Ken Starr was appointed as an independent counsel by the D.C. Federal District Court. His legal analysis on indicting a sitting president is a court memo for a federal court. Do..........you.............think I'm just quoting some guys opinion that he said on a talk show? or some Op-ed in a newspaper? This is something that would be admissible as a piece of evidence when submitting a case to the Supreme Court. it went unchallenged, which helps its credibility. Edited January 8, 2019 by jehurey 1 Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ramza said: So it's not taken to court yet, just investigations? Gotcha. Call us up when you have a verdict. Somehow I feel we won't get a call... Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Ramza said: So it's not taken to court yet, just investigations? Gotcha. Call us up when you have a verdict. LOL he's got guilty pleas, and for some of them, he's even gotten all the way to the SENTENCING part. I mean, seriously? Are you really trying to play ignorant this badly, on purpose? Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,227 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said: Somehow I feel we won't get a call... You're right. Rick Gates didn't fight the charges and plead guilty. Michael Cohen didn't fight the charges and plead guilty...........WITHOUT a plea deal. George Papadapolous didn't fight the charges and plead guilty. Michael Flynn didn't fight the charges and plead guilty. So you ARE CORRECT...........you didn't get a phone call to be on a jury for those criminal charges, because the defendant didn't want to face a trial by jury and instead started pleading for plea bargains, or just went straight to admitting guilt. Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, jehurey said: You're right. Rick Gates didn't fight the charges and plead guilty. Michael Cohen didn't fight the charges and plead guilty...........WITHOUT a plea deal. George Papadapolous didn't fight the charges and plead guilty. Michael Flynn didn't fight the charges and plead guilty. So you ARE CORRECT...........you didn't get a phone call to be on a jury for those criminal charges, because the defendant didn't want to face a trial by jury and instead started pleading for plea bargains, or just went straight to admitting guilt. Just curious Jerry, what exactly did all of these people plea to? What were they convicted of and on the basis of what charges EXACTLY.. Link to post Share on other sites
Playstation Tablet 1,723 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Honestly I don't have a side in this, but Jehurey's stuff is bordering on fan fiction at this point. None of that will ever pan out, be real. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Sublyminal 177 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, jehurey said: Ken Starr was appointed as an independent counsel by the D.C. Federal District Court. His legal analysis on indicting a sitting president is a court memo for a federal court. Do..........you.............think I'm just quoting some guys opinion that he said on a talk show? or some Op-ed in a newspaper? This is something that would be admissible as a piece of evidence when submitting a case to the Supreme Court. it went unchallenged, which helps its credibility. So what? He was Mueller before Mueller. His opinion meant little then. Clinton was never indicted, he was impeached but the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to vote on removal, thus Clinton went on to a second term. Ken Starr was doing nothing more than trying to appease his Republican masters, much like Mueller is doing now. When this is all said and done, Mueller will come out stating the same thing as Starr stated. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts