Etrius pawned again ....
#1
 x 1 x 0
Etrius pawned again ....  by Mueller this time:


What was Etrius claiming the other day ..... about who can be indited?


President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller told Trump's legal team two weeks ago he will follow Justice Department guidance saying a sitting president cannot be indicted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/16/mueller-told-trumps-legal-team-will-not-indict-president-giuliani-tells-fox-news.html
#2
 x 0 x 0
And what did apollo say about Justice depart "guidance" - it means you follow it or else ...
#3
 x 0 x 0
Etrius dead wrong yet again .. for the 1000th time.
#4
 x 1 x 0
Yeah but, let's be real.  Can you build the best birdhouse in 3 states?  
"Do not correct a fool, or he will hate you; correct a wise man and he will appreciate you." ~PROVERBS 9:8



#5
 x 0 x 0
Holy fuck idiot.

Following a recommendation... Stating he will not indict..

This is not even close to the debate we had before... you said they COULD NOT

Again you show you do not understand the difference between cannot... and now will not.
I might not change the world, but I sure won't ever let it change me. P.S.
#6
 x 0 x 0
There’s so much fawking stupid that flows out of Ernie. Why does this mental midget insist on posting and continuing to make himself look stupider than everyone already knows he is?

Had Simple Jack read the article as opposed to sticking his foot in his mouth every single human here would be less dumb than after having to have read his drivel.

Fuck Me Running!

“The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.”

"The same reason they can’t indict him, they can’t issue a subpoena to him," Giuliani told Ingraham Wednesday night. "Remember, [former President Bill] Clinton opposed a subpoena and then he voluntarily complied. He didn't give up presidential prerogative, and then his administration wrote a memo saying they can't do that."

Stupid. Mother Fawker. How dare you call apollo the moron and any other names you do when being the absolutely wrong individual you are in every conversation!
Belief is NOT a Substitute for Knowledge.
#7
 x 0 x 0
(05-17-2018, 02:44 AM)Etrius24 Wrote:  Holy fuck idiot.

Following a recommendation... Stating he will not indict..

This is not even close to the debate we had before... you said they COULD NOT

Again you show you do not understand the difference between cannot... and now will not.

E .... don't know how they do it in Canada .. but this is USA - certain precedence, common sense interpretation of Constitutions are expected from DOJ.    When DOJ  gives a "recommendation" in a highly sensitive matters - you better believe it they want it to be followed within DOJ - regardless of what they taught you in Bernie school.
#8
 x 0 x 0
Holy fuck...

Do we have to go through this again

The Supreme court has never ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted for criminal acts.

Never


Memos have been written suggesting different arguments and certain applications... But there is no legal precedent that says you cannot indict a president for criminal offenses. None.


A memo is not a supreme court ruling. I could write a memo that says you should jump off a cliff... That does not mean you have to do it legally.

As previously discussed... Memos and suggestions are not the same thing as legal rulings by the supreme court. If Mueller or whoever decide to follow the advice of the justice department and not pursue an indictment... That is fine... But to say that he could not ... And that a president cannot be indicted... Is just wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=i4r9WtCyCYa2jwTlwp6YCA&q=what+is+a+legal+memo&oq=what+is+a+legal+memo&gs_l=psy-ab.3...23829.25173.0.25794.6.6.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.6-hBsjLbK3M

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html


Will not is not the same as cannot.
Should not is not the same as cannot.

A memo is not a ruling by the court.
I might not change the world, but I sure won't ever let it change me. P.S.
#9
 x 0 x 0
Precedent was set and is set for the president.

Ignore facts and post some Fakebook crap.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1560/


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Belief is NOT a Substitute for Knowledge.
#10
 x 0 x 0
(05-17-2018, 11:08 AM)Etrius24 Wrote:  Holy fuck...

Do we have to go through this again

The Supreme court has never ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted for criminal acts.

Never


Memos have been written suggesting different arguments and certain applications... But there is no legal precedent that says you cannot indict a president for criminal offenses.  None.


A memo is not a supreme court ruling.  I could write a memo that says you should jump off a cliff... That does not mean you have to do it legally.

As previously discussed... Memos and suggestions are not the same thing as legal rulings by the supreme court.   If Mueller or whoever decide to follow the advice of the justice department and not pursue an indictment... That is fine... But to say that he could not ... And that a president cannot be indicted... Is just wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=i4r9WtCyCYa2jwTlwp6YCA&q=what+is+a+legal+memo&oq=what+is+a+legal+memo&gs_l=psy-ab.3...23829.25173.0.25794.6.6.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.6-hBsjLbK3M

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html


Will not is not the same as cannot.  
Should not is not the same as cannot.

A memo is not a ruling by the court.

Fraudster E - Supreme Court does has not ruled on many many things - because there is already a precedence.    For example SC does not have to rule you're an idiot!
#11
 x 0 x 0
(05-17-2018, 11:45 AM)Jezter13 Wrote:  Precedent was set and is set for the president.

Ignore facts and post some Fakebook crap.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1560/


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Jez

The first link you provided here has a lengthy argument that says you can indict a sitting president.

Job well done  Yarr
I might not change the world, but I sure won't ever let it change me. P.S.
#12
 x 0 x 0
(05-17-2018, 06:10 PM)Etrius24 Wrote:  
(05-17-2018, 11:45 AM)Jezter13 Wrote:  Precedent was set and is set for the president.

Ignore facts and post some Fakebook crap.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1560/


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Jez

The first link you provided here has a lengthy argument that says you can indict a sitting president.

Job well done  Yarr

You obviously cannot comprehend the English language.   
Belief is NOT a Substitute for Knowledge.
#13
 x 0 x 0
Apollo, just for future reference it is "pwned" not pawned.

Though, he is a pawn to the political left.

:)
Belief is NOT a Substitute for Knowledge.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)