In re: United States v. Nixon

[OKTexas]

We have now heard from the Trumpanzees. Not a one offered a reason why two men appointed by a defendant to a life long job, will now sit on a jury to judge their benefactor.

Most readers will understand that a conflict of interests now exists, and both men know how trump treats anyone who is not loyal to him.

So tell the class how may cases involving maobama did Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves from? I can think of exactly one, because Kagan served as maobamas solicitor general in the early stages of the case. Once again, your strawman goes down if flames.

.

Irrelevant. Grow up, this case under appeal is unique. Find another or STFU.

LMAO, no it's not in any way unique. The NY case is a typical 4th Amendment case and the others are a dispute between the legislative and executive branch with 4th amendment undertones. You're obviously too ignorant to understand what you're talking about.

.

How many times have a President of the United States come under an investigation, and why do you believe the subpoena for documents is "unreasonable"? Follow the money is not unique, but when the subject of the investigation is the President it become so.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to require documents, and the efforts by trump and his sycophants refused other institutions to release his records, is more evidence that for trump to do so would incriminate him; for what he is hiding and for obstruction of justice.

First NY is claiming to be investigating one year, 2016, yet they are seeking 10 years of records. They are fishing, not investigating. They may get very limited relief from the court if they can make a case of probable cause.

Congress can only investigate for a distinct legislative purpose, they can't claim they are looking at how the IRS is treating the returns of presidents when seeking records for just one president. I think the court will see right through this sham fishing expedition. Trump has every legal right to protect his privacy on his taxes, he does file annual financial reports as required by law. I don't see any of you commies crying about them.

.

 

[Rye Catcher]

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

 

[Nostra]

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

You are such an idiot. Using YOUR STANDARD, any SC justice would have to recuse from any ruling involving the President who appointed him/her.

The funny thing about this is, you have no clue how fucking moronic that sounds.

 

[edward37]

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

You mean like the POS BARR has done?

 

[edward37]

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

You are such an idiot. Using YOUR STANDARD, any SC justice would have to recuse from any ruling involving the President who appointed him/her.

The funny thing about this is, you have no clue how fucking moronic that sounds.

Yeah real good having the guy you gave a life time job to vote for anything you want

 

[Rye Catcher]

We have now heard from the Trumpanzees. Not a one offered a reason why two men appointed by a defendant to a life long job, will now sit on a jury to judge their benefactor.

Most readers will understand that a conflict of interests now exists, and both men know how trump treats anyone who is not loyal to him.

So tell the class how may cases involving maobama did Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves from? I can think of exactly one, because Kagan served as maobamas solicitor general in the early stages of the case. Once again, your strawman goes down if flames.

.

Irrelevant. Grow up, this case under appeal is unique. Find another or STFU.

LMAO, no it's not in any way unique. The NY case is a typical 4th Amendment case and the others are a dispute between the legislative and executive branch with 4th amendment undertones. You're obviously too ignorant to understand what you're talking about.

.

How many times have a President of the United States come under an investigation, and why do you believe the subpoena for documents is "unreasonable"? Follow the money is not unique, but when the subject of the investigation is the President it become so.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to require documents, and the efforts by trump and his sycophants refused other institutions to release his records, is more evidence that for trump to do so would incriminate him; for what he is hiding and for obstruction of justice.

First NY is claiming to be investigating one year, 2016, yet they are seeking 10 years of records. They are fishing, not investigating. They may get very limited relief from the court if they can make a case of probable cause.

Congress can only investigate for a distinct legislative purpose, they can't claim they are looking at how the IRS is treating the returns of presidents when seeking records for just one president. I think the court will see right through this sham fishing expedition. Trump has every legal right to protect his privacy on his taxes, he does file annual financial reports as required by law. I don't see any of you commies crying about them.

.

Bullshit. Read Art I, sec 9, clause 1.

As for NY, unless you have an argument that a statute of limitations exists, the State of NY can go back as far as necessary. And even if the records are too old for prosecution, what may have been within those records conflicts with more recent tax reports, they can be introduced in a criminal matter as evidence of fraud.

 

[OKTexas]

So tell the class how may cases involving maobama did Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves from? I can think of exactly one, because Kagan served as maobamas solicitor general in the early stages of the case. Once again, your strawman goes down if flames.

.

Irrelevant. Grow up, this case under appeal is unique. Find another or STFU.

LMAO, no it's not in any way unique. The NY case is a typical 4th Amendment case and the others are a dispute between the legislative and executive branch with 4th amendment undertones. You're obviously too ignorant to understand what you're talking about.

.

How many times have a President of the United States come under an investigation, and why do you believe the subpoena for documents is "unreasonable"? Follow the money is not unique, but when the subject of the investigation is the President it become so.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to require documents, and the efforts by trump and his sycophants refused other institutions to release his records, is more evidence that for trump to do so would incriminate him; for what he is hiding and for obstruction of justice.

First NY is claiming to be investigating one year, 2016, yet they are seeking 10 years of records. They are fishing, not investigating. They may get very limited relief from the court if they can make a case of probable cause.

Congress can only investigate for a distinct legislative purpose, they can't claim they are looking at how the IRS is treating the returns of presidents when seeking records for just one president. I think the court will see right through this sham fishing expedition. Trump has every legal right to protect his privacy on his taxes, he does file annual financial reports as required by law. I don't see any of you commies crying about them.

.

Bullshit. Read Art I, sec 9, clause 1.

As for NY, unless you have an argument that a statute of limitations exists, the State of NY can go back as far as necessary. And even if the records are too old for prosecution, what may have been within those records conflicts with more recent tax reports, they can be introduced in a criminal matter as evidence of fraud.

What does immigration have to do with this?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And like I said, all NY has to do is make their case. I know of no legal requirement to keep records beyond 7 years. The IRS only requires, current plus 3.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Irrelevant. Grow up, this case under appeal is unique. Find another or STFU.

LMAO, no it's not in any way unique. The NY case is a typical 4th Amendment case and the others are a dispute between the legislative and executive branch with 4th amendment undertones. You're obviously too ignorant to understand what you're talking about.

.

How many times have a President of the United States come under an investigation, and why do you believe the subpoena for documents is "unreasonable"? Follow the money is not unique, but when the subject of the investigation is the President it become so.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to require documents, and the efforts by trump and his sycophants refused other institutions to release his records, is more evidence that for trump to do so would incriminate him; for what he is hiding and for obstruction of justice.

First NY is claiming to be investigating one year, 2016, yet they are seeking 10 years of records. They are fishing, not investigating. They may get very limited relief from the court if they can make a case of probable cause.

Congress can only investigate for a distinct legislative purpose, they can't claim they are looking at how the IRS is treating the returns of presidents when seeking records for just one president. I think the court will see right through this sham fishing expedition. Trump has every legal right to protect his privacy on his taxes, he does file annual financial reports as required by law. I don't see any of you commies crying about them.

.

Bullshit. Read Art I, sec 9, clause 1.

As for NY, unless you have an argument that a statute of limitations exists, the State of NY can go back as far as necessary. And even if the records are too old for prosecution, what may have been within those records conflicts with more recent tax reports, they can be introduced in a criminal matter as evidence of fraud.

What does immigration have to do with this?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And like I said, all NY has to do is make their case. I know of no legal requirement to keep records beyond 7 years. The IRS only requires, current plus 3.

.

You didn't really think any Communist had read the Constitution..

Rye Catcher is so stupid he doesn't grasp that EVERY Conservative here knows the Constitution like the back of their hand. The Constitution for Conservatives plays the same role that "Rules for Radicals" plays for the democrats....

 

[OKTexas]

LMAO, no it's not in any way unique. The NY case is a typical 4th Amendment case and the others are a dispute between the legislative and executive branch with 4th amendment undertones. You're obviously too ignorant to understand what you're talking about.

.

How many times have a President of the United States come under an investigation, and why do you believe the subpoena for documents is "unreasonable"? Follow the money is not unique, but when the subject of the investigation is the President it become so.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to require documents, and the efforts by trump and his sycophants refused other institutions to release his records, is more evidence that for trump to do so would incriminate him; for what he is hiding and for obstruction of justice.

First NY is claiming to be investigating one year, 2016, yet they are seeking 10 years of records. They are fishing, not investigating. They may get very limited relief from the court if they can make a case of probable cause.

Congress can only investigate for a distinct legislative purpose, they can't claim they are looking at how the IRS is treating the returns of presidents when seeking records for just one president. I think the court will see right through this sham fishing expedition. Trump has every legal right to protect his privacy on his taxes, he does file annual financial reports as required by law. I don't see any of you commies crying about them.

.

Bullshit. Read Art I, sec 9, clause 1.

As for NY, unless you have an argument that a statute of limitations exists, the State of NY can go back as far as necessary. And even if the records are too old for prosecution, what may have been within those records conflicts with more recent tax reports, they can be introduced in a criminal matter as evidence of fraud.

What does immigration have to do with this?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And like I said, all NY has to do is make their case. I know of no legal requirement to keep records beyond 7 years. The IRS only requires, current plus 3.

.

You didn't really think any Communist had read the Constitution..

Rye Catcher is so stupid he doesn't grasp that EVERY Conservative here knows the Constitution like the back of their hand. The Constitution for Conservatives plays the same role that "Rules for Radicals" plays for the democrats....

Yep, I've got a copy on my desk and one I can pull up on line in a second.

.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

 

[Rye Catcher]

From this link, NO Person holding any Office of Trust under them, SHALL, without the Consent of Congress, accept of an present...of any kind whatsoever, ... or foreign State.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Comrade, how EXACTLY did Potentate Obama end up with $100 million net worth from his time in office? Trump went into office a rich man, Obama only left office a rich man.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From this link, NO Person holding any Office of Trust under them, SHALL, without the Consent of Congress, accept of an present...of any kind whatsoever, ... or foreign State.

You mean like the million dollars Obama took from the Nobel Committee, Comrade hypocrite?

 

[OKTexas]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Poor little commie, I guess you're not aware that the Trump organization cuts a check to the treasury for profits related to any foreign government officials that stay at one of their properties.

Poof, another strawman up in smoke. LMAO

Got to run for a while, I'll be back to destroy any other of your fantasies that come up.

.

 

[CWayne]

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

It's right there in your own words.

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

That is you saying that Renquist recused himself because he served as an asst AG under Nixon and so he recused himself.

Neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch have to recuse themselves.

Your nonsense that because Trump nominated them to the SCOTUS is a reason for recusal is not only the thinking of a low-grade IQ but lacking in logic because neither of them will be sitting in the Senate trial after this sham impeachment is finished.

You are simply attempting to eliminate anyone from the court that may have a different view of Trump than your own.

It doesn't work that way. You get the SCOTUS that exists right now. I also hope that Trump gets two more nominations so that people like you cannot subvert the Republic with judicial fiat rulings.

 

[Rye Catcher]

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

See; United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General. Will the two new members of the Supreme Court have the integrity to do what Justice Rehnquist did???

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

It's right there in your own words.

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

That is you saying that Renquist recused himself because he served as an asst AG under Nixon and so he recused himself.

Neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch have to recuse themselves.

Your nonsense that because Trump nominated them to the SCOTUS is a reason for recusal is not only the thinking of a low-grade IQ but lacking in logic because neither of them will be sitting in the Senate trial after this sham impeachment is finished.

You are simply attempting to eliminate anyone from the court that may have a different view of Trump than your own.

It doesn't work that way. You get the SCOTUS that exists right now. I also hope that Trump gets two more nominations so that people like you cannot subvert the Republic with judicial fiat rulings.

Oh fuck you. There is a quid pro quo in effect, "I appoint you, you be loyal to me". It's a tactic used by Trump the one as used by Mob Bosses. I will do a favor for you, but one day I will expect you will do a favor for me.

Take your ad hominem and shove it up the ass of trump the next time you kiss it.

 

[CWayne]

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

What? Rehnequest was nominated by Trump and became a member of the Supreme Court during Nixon's Administration.


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump,

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

Did I dumb it up enough for you?

Straw man. Neither served under Trump.

Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court as well had served as an Asst. AG in Nixon's Admninistration;

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been nominated and are now members of the Supreme Court. Is a conflict of interest at issue? Rehnquest thought so, and recused himself.

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh served as AG in any capacity under Trump. Your own criteria is that Rehnquist served as an assistant AG under Nixon.

No need to recuse themselves at all. Besides, both have been pretty liberal in their rulings.

The person who will be presiding over the Senate will be Chief Justice Roberts.

NO SHIT - I NEVER WROTE THEY DID. YOUR COMMENT IS AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD THE READER, A COMMON PRACTICE OF A TRUMPANZEE.

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE TWO NOMINATED BY tRUMP HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY OWE HIM FOR A LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MOST PRESTIGE POSITION WITHIN OUR NATIONS JURISPRUDENCE.

WILL THEY VOTE TO PROTECT TRUMP AND THUS PUT THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS THE ISSUE.

It's right there in your own words.

Rehnquest served as an asst. AG in the Nixon Administration.

Rehnquest had the integrity to recuse himself.

That is you saying that Renquist recused himself because he served as an asst AG under Nixon and so he recused himself.

Neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch have to recuse themselves.

Your nonsense that because Trump nominated them to the SCOTUS is a reason for recusal is not only the thinking of a low-grade IQ but lacking in logic because neither of them will be sitting in the Senate trial after this sham impeachment is finished.

You are simply attempting to eliminate anyone from the court that may have a different view of Trump than your own.

It doesn't work that way. You get the SCOTUS that exists right now. I also hope that Trump gets two more nominations so that people like you cannot subvert the Republic with judicial fiat rulings.

Oh fuck you. There is a quid pro quo in effect, "I appoint you, you be loyal to me". It's a tactic used by Trump the one as used by Mob Bosses. I will do a favor for you, but one day I will expect you will do a favor for me.

Take your ad hominem and shove it up the ass of trump the next time you kiss it.

Wow. You are delusional. If that were the case, then every SC Justice owes a quid pro quo.

You are projecting your sick mind onto others.

 

[jwoodie]

The link I offered in the OP I thought was clear.

From your link:

Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself due to his close association with several Watergate conspirators, including Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, prior to his appointment to the Court.

In addition:

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment".

To what offenses are President Trump's tax returns relevant?

 

[Dana7360]

From this link, NO Person holding any Office of Trust under them, SHALL, without the Consent of Congress, accept of an present...of any kind whatsoever, ... or foreign State.

You mean like the million dollars Obama took from the Nobel Committee, Comrade hypocrite?

Fuck you, you GD Nazi.

Obama donated that money to 10 different charities. He didn't keep it.

The person you're replying to is an out and out liar. But then, if those people couldn't lie, they wouldn't have anything to say.

Obama gives $1.4 million Nobel prize to 10 charities

 

[Rye Catcher]

The link I offered in the OP I thought was clear.

From your link:

Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself due to his close association with several Watergate conspirators, including Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, prior to his appointment to the Court.

In addition:

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment".

To what offenses are President Trump's tax returns relevant?

Duh...what part of Fuck you did you not get.