The Bottom Line

[The VOR]

Crooked Donald suborned his personal attorney to violate the law, all to cover up his adultery so he could win the election.

If Stormy and McDougal had gone public in a big way so soon after Crooked Donald was outed as a pussy grabber, he'd have done down faster than a porn star on Ron Jeremy's crank.

Now the poor tards are setting all new low benchmarks which will come back to bitch slap them someday.

"Yeah, but did he shoot the guy on Fifth Avenue in the head on a Tuesday after 7 pm on an even numbered day in February?"

How dare you tarnish Ron Jeremy's good name by even mentioning him in the same post as that pussy-grabbing sleazebag trump.

 

[g5000]

If Lyin' Donald broke the law, he should not be indicted. He should be impeached.

I would not indict him for the hooker bribery thing. I'd wait until Mueller is finished with his investigation. If Crazy Donald is a thoroughly corrupt crook, Mueller will find it, and then not even the GOP Senate will be able to stomach the idea of letting Crooked Donald off the hook.

The GOP Senate is ready to cut bait and run from him soon anyway. They pretty much got all they can get out of him by now, so it's time to save their own asses for the upcoming election in 2020.

As much as I thoroughly hate Trump for destroying the conservative and Republican brands, I do not want to see him impeached. Impeachment is bad for the country.

But if Mueller finds proof Trump laundered Russian mob money, hard proof, then Trump needs to go. Not just out of the White House. He needs to go to prison for some hard time for the rest of his life.

Bribing the hookers was sleaze. While I don't like it, it doesn't rise to impeachment level for me, even though Trump would definitely not be President today if he hadn't broken the law and bribed them.

If the election for President of the United States was so close that it swung on which candidate was the most sleazy, then we need to take a good fucking hard look at OURSELVES.

But I have seen more than enough evidence the Trumptards will NEVER do that.

Nor will the Clintontwats.

We get the politicians we deserve.

 

[easyt65]

With no explicit constitutional provision supporting presidential immunity — and no clear consensus from the framers — we need to turn to case law for answers. In the landmark 1974 case U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court required President Richard Nixon to turn over those parts of his secret Oval Office tape recordings that were relevant to the Watergate criminal investigation.

Cool - so you are saying the FBI should turn over al of its secret recordings of Trump and his team, that Rosenstein and Mueller should be held accountable for Obstructing Justice by refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas by refusing to turn over documents and should immediately turn over everything, that the FBI should immediately answer Congress's inquiry into why they went 'Rogue' by violating a law and raiding a protected whistleblower who has evidence - HAD evidence - against the FBI, and show their warrant they claimed to have but refused to show when raiding the whistleblower's home .....

I completely agree.

 

[The Original Tree]

With no explicit constitutional provision supporting presidential immunity — and no clear consensus from the framers — we need to turn to case law for answers. In the landmark 1974 case U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court required President Richard Nixon to turn over those parts of his secret Oval Office tape recordings that were relevant to the Watergate criminal investigation.

Cool - so you are saying the FBI should turn over al of its secret recordings of Trump and his team, that Rosenstein and Mueller should be held accountable for Obstructing Justice by refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas by refusing to turn over documents and should immediately turn over everything, that the FBI should immediately answer Congress's inquiry into why they went 'Rogue' by violating a law and raiding a protected whistleblower who has evidence - HAD evidence - against the FBI, and show their warrant they claimed to have but refused to show when raiding the whistleblower's home .....

I completely agree.

Turn them over. Also turn over all of the secret recordings of Clinton when she and Obama paid for The Dirty Dossier, when the haggled with Fusion GPS over the price, and when the Russian Propaganda was delivered in to their hot little hands. I also want to hear when it was given to John Kerry, and John McCain and delivered to The FBI, DOJ and FISA. All those recordings, texts and emails within the DOJ, FBI FISA anything related to The Dossier should be made public.

 

[easyt65]

WORTH A REPEAT:



1. A sitting president CANNOT be indicted.
-- Official DOJ policy since 1973. Not even Special Counsel, the Southern District of New York (SDNY), nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can change that.

2. SDNY is NOT expert in campaign finance violations and neither is the Clinton appointed district judge. They rarely handle campaign finance cases.
-- The Leftist media and politicians are parroting the self-serving briefs the prosecutors have filed without looking at / reporting actual rules / context that apply.

3 Those ACTUAL rules and context do NOT include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature, etc. as campaign contributions.
-- This is EXACTLY WHY the left-wing media and politicians do no read / report the actual rules and context.

4. SDNY inclusion of these charges in the Cohen plea deal was a sleazy political and PR attack against the president by an office coordinating with Mueller and aligned with Comey.
-- SDNY knew Cohen would plead. It, therefore, knew its absurd allegations would not be tested in any courtroom — district, circuit or Supreme Court. If they were tested, SDNY would be hammered...But it knew the left-wing media and politicians would use the mere over-the-top allegations from its office, with absolutely nothing more, to claim the president committed campaign felonies. No due process. No assumption of innocence. They knew they couldn’t charge a sitting president. Thus, they convict the president in the press, not only an extreme act of professional misconduct but a violation of the very purpose of the DOJ memos banning the indictment of a sitting president...

5. NDAs involving wholly private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate and completely unrelated to his office cannot legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
-- The history of the clause and its “high crimes and misdemeanors” language make it crystal clear that the office and the president’s duties are not affected in any conceivable way by these earlier private contracts.

As usual, the Witch Hunters and Rah-Rah Liberal media are whipping the snowflakes into a tizzy again only to have their hopes, dreams, and high spirits dashed again...


Mark Levin: A time for truth