"So called judge"

[soundforbjt]

Not only a Bush appointed judge but confirmed by senate 99-0. I wonder if Trump cant see how stupid this makes him look.

Why would he start now?

 

[Zorba]

Aside from business interests, to what gain would Trump "collude" work Putin?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

Seriously? Putting business interests before the interest of the nation is treason, period.

 

[sweenish]

A few blasts from the past.

RealClearPolitics :
How Obama Is Expanding Presidential Power | RealClearPolitics

Time :
Obama's Breathtaking Expansion of a President's Power To Make War

The Guardian :
Want to know just how much Obama overreached on executive power? Wait for America's next 'king'

All these references show is the inherent hypocrisy of the GOP. Every single thing Obama did was an affront to our forefathers, but when Trump does the exact same thing, it's okay.

 

[blackangst1]

Seriously? Putting business interests before the interest of the nation is treason, period.

No, actually, it's not.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[UberNeuman]

No, actually, it's not.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

It is when one is the President and it's their business interest put ahead of the nation.

 

[blackangst1]

It is when one is the President and it's their business interest put ahead of the nation.

No, its not.

 

[Mai72]

All these references show is the inherent hypocrisy of the GOP. Every single thing Obama did was an affront to our forefathers, but when Trump does the exact same thing, it's okay.

I just think the Republicans are afraid of Trump. IMO, many do not like him. But, they are afraid of overstepping because they will be in Trump's Twitter feed the next day.

 

[pcgeek11]

It is when one is the President and it's their business interest put ahead of the nation.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

[blackangst1]

It is when one is the President and it's their business interest put ahead of the nation.

Youre very confused about our constitution:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason."

 

[UberNeuman]

No, its not.

I look forward to the legal argument of "No, its not."

"giving them Aid and Comfort."

/Trump's Russian/blackmailed love becomes more apparent as the days go on.....

 

[blackangst1]

I look forward to the legal argument of "No, its not."

"giving them Aid and Comfort."

/Trump's Russian/blackmailed love becomes more apparent as the days go on.....

Read the constitution man

 

[Maxima1]

Visa holders from one Muslim nation cannot be shown to be more dangerous than if from another. Well, unless you consider the 9/11 attackers, none of whose native lands are on the stupid list.

It's grandstanding & pandering to well cultivated anti Muslim sentiment.

Are you suggesting that there are no differences between the incidence of terrorism between non-Muslims and Muslims? Because that's definitely false. We already saw multiple attacks in Europe and even here, despite having more control and a low Muslim pop.

 

[Maxima1]

Not only a Bush appointed judge but confirmed by senate 99-0. I wonder if Trump cant see how stupid this makes him look.

You get tallies like that for the lower courts all the time despite judges varying distinctly in their rulings.

 

[LegendKiller]

Not only a Bush appointed judge but confirmed by senate 99-0. I wonder if Trump cant see how stupid this makes him look.

I didn't read it but apparently this judges rationale lacked any (many) legal citations and will lost likely be overturned.

He is an activist judge and has no legal ground to stand on.

 

[jackstar7]

Read the constitution man

You don't think two people will flip on this asshole? Or you don't think a case can be made for Aid and Comfort?

 

[blackangst1]

You don't think two people will flip on this asshole? Or you don't think a case can be made for Aid and Comfort?

No. Not at all. Not if he's building a relationship work Russia for business purposes. That isn't even in the same league as treason.

 

[blackangst1]

You don't think two people will flip on this asshole? Or you don't think a case can be made for Aid and Comfort?

And Andy do you mean by flip? What's to flip on?

 

[blackangst1]

And Andy do you mean by flip? What's to flip on?

What, not Andy. Can't edit work tapatalk.

 

[jackstar7]

No. Not at all. Not if he's building a relationship work Russia for business purposes. That isn't even in the same league as treason.

I'm going to guess you're neither a lawyer, legal scholar nor Constitutional expert. So yeah, I think a case can be made for aid and comfort if his business dealings are at odds with, or lead him to act against, the best interests of the country.

Call it a hunch that there would be many lawyers looking to make that case and enjoy the career perks that follow their success.

And what do you mean by flip? What's to flip on?

I mean meeting the two witnesses requirement.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm going to guess you're neither a lawyer, legal scholar nor Constitutional expert. So yeah, I think a case can be made for aid and comfort if his business dealings are at odds with, or lead him to act against, the best interests of the country.



I mean meeting the two witnesses requirement.

Let's say two people say Trump has made deals with Russia to benefit his business. We aren't at war with Russia so we're not providing aid or comfort. So where's the treason?

And yeah. I'm guessing you aren't a constitutional lawyer either.

 

[UberNeuman]

Let's say two people say Trump has made deals with Russia to benefit his business. We aren't at war with Russia so we're not providing aid or comfort. So where's the treason?

And yeah. I'm guessing you aren't a constitutional lawyer either.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Guess you didn't read the Constitution, or just glossed over the parts you don't wish to see...

 

[jackstar7]

Let's say two people say Trump has made deals with Russia to benefit his business. We aren't at war with Russia so we're not providing aid or comfort. So where's the treason?

And yeah. I'm guessing you aren't a constitutional lawyer either.

Got it. You're only working from the present. I'm keeping on eye on where the pieces are most likely to move. War is not out of the question by a long shot and treason charges will possibly follow.

And you're damn right about my not being a constitutional expert. It's why I'm saying a case could be made, not phrasing my opinions as facts.

 

[Thump553]

We've gone way afield with the discussion about impeachment (I agree he hasn't been caught in anything serious enough yet) but most scholars agree that the Constitution was INTENTIONALLY set up so that treason is extremely difficult to prove as opposition to the Crown was frequently cast as treason by the Colonial authorities. But "high crimes" (no meaningful legal definition) and misdemeanors (i.e., any crime carrying a potential sentence of imprisonment less than a year-such as jaywalking) are very easy. After all remember Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a hummer under oath-where the hummer bore absolutely no relevance to the matter purportedly being investigated. Nixon's articles of impeachment also said nothing about treason.

The chances of this Congress impeaching Trump are very slim and won't happen until the GOP calculates a Pence presidency is worth the damage of removing Trump.

I also feel a lot of people place undue reliance on the checks and balances system. Presently both houses of Congress are a de facto rubber stamp for Trump-the sole traditional balance presently remaining is our independent federal judiciary and less traditionally the military leadership has no support for a dictatorship. The people have no sway over military appointments and countless dictators have purged and reshaped military leadership as their path to dictatorship.

 

[Meghan54]

I didn't read it but apparently this judges rationale lacked any (many) legal citations and will lost likely be overturned.

He is an activist judge and has no legal ground to stand on.

If this judge is such an activist, I'm sure you've got lots of examples of his activism over the years prior to this ruling.

I'm sure you do......

 

[mikeymikec]

If this judge is such an activist, I'm sure you've got lots of examples of his activism over the years prior to this ruling.

I'm sure you do......

Although the idea of a guy whose bread and butter has been the letter of the law for more than four decades, to make a professional judgement that is likely to have "no legal ground to stand on", is an interesting assertion to make, especially when he's up against... Donald Trump, who is of course a paragon of legal expertise and virtue.