Michael Avenatti furious over ‘CREEPY P___ LAWYER’ chyron on Fox News

[bripat9643]

Ok, this was dirty and sneaky. I don't agree with it, but when I first saw this clip I had to laugh my behind off. "I agreed I wasn't going to call him the derogatory name I have called him" and then underneath the image of this guy time and time again is the caption.

It's not cool to do this, but the lawyer is a sleazy guy there is no question, and I had to laugh. He has a right to be upset and he had a right to call out Tucker to his face. Well...call me a bad guy for laughing, but I did. Maybe you will too

Michael Avenatti furious over ‘CREEPY PORN LAWYER’ chyron on Fox News

In an intense TV interview Thursday night, Fox News host and commentator Tucker Carlson promised Stormy Daniels’s attorney Michael Avenatti that he would not use his inflammatory nickname for the lawyer on his show — then immediately went to a chyron that read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Carlson introduced Avenatti on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” explaining that in the past, Avenatti has “demanded that we stop referring to him by a certain, unflattering nickname.”

“We haven’t agreed to that demand, but tonight, as a gesture of goodwill, we will not use that nickname,” Carlson vowed. “Because we’re always grateful when guests are brave enough to show up in person, including in this case.”

He then turned to the lawyer.

“We could sit here and hurl insults at each other for the segment. Already done that,” Carlson told Avenatti. “I’ve certainly insulted you. You’ve insulted me. But you seem smart, so let me take you seriously as somebody who wants to be involved in the public conversation.

At the time, the caption on the screen: “STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER IS HERE TONIGHT.”

But once Carlson began questioning Avenatti about his presidential aspirations, it changed to include the nickname.

First, it read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Then: “DOES AMERICA WANT CREEPY PORN LAWYER AS PRES?”

Then: “STORMY’S LAWYER AS CREEPY PORN PRESIDENT?”

Then: “TUCKER TAKES ON CREEPY PORN LAWYER.”

Then just: “CPL FINALLY AGREES TO INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER.”

He may represent a porn Star
But our President fucked her

Does that make him Creepy Porn President?

What does it make our Porn Star First Lady?

President Trump is one LUCKY MAN...….

We all know why you TARDS hate him...

Our President is an insecure man who has to surround himself with younger arm candy to affirm his masculinity

Yeah, because everyone knows how men with hoards of beautiful women hanging all over them are so insecure.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ok, this was dirty and sneaky. I don't agree with it, but when I first saw this clip I had to laugh my behind off. "I agreed I wasn't going to call him the derogatory name I have called him" and then underneath the image of this guy time and time again is the caption.

It's not cool to do this, but the lawyer is a sleazy guy there is no question, and I had to laugh. He has a right to be upset and he had a right to call out Tucker to his face. Well...call me a bad guy for laughing, but I did. Maybe you will too

Michael Avenatti furious over ‘CREEPY PORN LAWYER’ chyron on Fox News

In an intense TV interview Thursday night, Fox News host and commentator Tucker Carlson promised Stormy Daniels’s attorney Michael Avenatti that he would not use his inflammatory nickname for the lawyer on his show — then immediately went to a chyron that read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Carlson introduced Avenatti on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” explaining that in the past, Avenatti has “demanded that we stop referring to him by a certain, unflattering nickname.”

“We haven’t agreed to that demand, but tonight, as a gesture of goodwill, we will not use that nickname,” Carlson vowed. “Because we’re always grateful when guests are brave enough to show up in person, including in this case.”

He then turned to the lawyer.

“We could sit here and hurl insults at each other for the segment. Already done that,” Carlson told Avenatti. “I’ve certainly insulted you. You’ve insulted me. But you seem smart, so let me take you seriously as somebody who wants to be involved in the public conversation.

At the time, the caption on the screen: “STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER IS HERE TONIGHT.”

But once Carlson began questioning Avenatti about his presidential aspirations, it changed to include the nickname.

First, it read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Then: “DOES AMERICA WANT CREEPY PORN LAWYER AS PRES?”

Then: “STORMY’S LAWYER AS CREEPY PORN PRESIDENT?”

Then: “TUCKER TAKES ON CREEPY PORN LAWYER.”

Then just: “CPL FINALLY AGREES TO INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER.”

He may represent a porn Star
But our President fucked her

Does that make him Creepy Porn President?

What does it make our Porn Star First Lady?

You don't know what porn is kunt.

Actually, you just lie about it. you're a Stalinist traitor after all.

Nude <> Porn

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They are? What evidence? LOL

Does it matter? The impeachment is happening with or without evidence. It won't pass through the Senate. With our without evidence. If you don't see this as a waste of time and money you're dumb. I've seen many of your posts and I don't think you are dumb. But if you disagree with me here then I'll be forced to change my mind.

Short term thinking. If he isn't impeached, it only has long term negative consequences for Republicans politically.

Trump cannot escape legally, what he might be able to escape politically.

One thing is for sure. He will have to leave office, one way or the other. At which time several prosecutors at both the federal, and state levels will be waiting with handcuffs when he leaves the White House grounds.

And if you don't think he isn't going face reprocussions for his crimes, then it is you that are dumb.

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

If Trump shoots someone
He gets arrested.....Period

I can not believe someone really thinks the President could shoot someone in the head, and not go to jail or be indicted until Congress goes through the impeachment process...

This is ******* hilarious.

It would be an expedited impeachment. But yes that is the law. I cannot believe you don't know the law.

Hold on you're dumb so let me explain:

1PM Trump shoots someone
1:05PM Trump is accused of murder and kept under watch
3PM an emergency hearing is held and he is impeached
3:30PM Trump is arrested for murder.

At 1:05PM Trump may not be arrested for murder.

I hope this helps your miniature brain process this.

 

[Lewdog]

Ken Starr said this week he thinks a President can be indicted...

Kenny did a great job with WJC. You may only impeach a POTUS. It was written into the constitution on purpose as such so that we could not charge our Commander in Chief with a crime while he was the CiC. F*CK we have so many uneducated people in this country. Read a damn book.

It's not decided that a President can't be indicted... The President isn't ABOVE the law.

He needs to be impeached first. He is the most powerful man in the world. If he shoots you in the head, he is impeached and then indicted. He will not be impeached over this Russia scandal so why would he or better yet how would he be indicted? He can fire Mueller and Rosenstein tomorrow. He is their boss. F*CK. I don't have a dog in this fight but arguing with stupid people (like you) is annoying. The same would be true if HRC won with the whole server crap. She would never be impeach and therefore could not be indicted.

Please educate yourself and stop embarrassing yourself.

No... it doesn't say that in the Constitution and Nixon resigned before the Supreme Court could decide on it...

Read a ******* book.

Yes it does. You are a moron. The SCOTUS could opine on the law as it is written and the SCOTUS leans towards Trump. Christ, you are a moron. I'll bet you any amount of $$$ I am right. Bet your life that I am wrong. Tempt fate. I dare you. I am 100% positive I am right. 100%!!!

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

You turds didn't seem too concerned about that when Slick Willy was getting his dick serviced in the Oval Office.

The hypocrisy of Trump haters is impossible to exaggerate.

 

[Lewdog]

They are? What evidence? LOL

Does it matter? The impeachment is happening with or without evidence. It won't pass through the Senate. With our without evidence. If you don't see this as a waste of time and money you're dumb. I've seen many of your posts and I don't think you are dumb. But if you disagree with me here then I'll be forced to change my mind.

Short term thinking. If he isn't impeached, it only has long term negative consequences for Republicans politically.

Trump cannot escape legally, what he might be able to escape politically.

One thing is for sure. He will have to leave office, one way or the other. At which time several prosecutors at both the federal, and state levels will be waiting with handcuffs when he leaves the White House grounds.

And if you don't think he isn't going face reprocussions for his crimes, then it is you that are dumb.

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

If Trump shoots someone
He gets arrested.....Period

I can not believe someone really thinks the President could shoot someone in the head, and not go to jail or be indicted until Congress goes through the impeachment process...

This is ******* hilarious.

It would be an expedited impeachment. But yes that is the law. I cannot believe you don't know the law.

I can't believe you THINK you know the law that hasn't even been decided by the Supreme Court. It's undecided law... It would go to the Supreme Court then become case law.

 

[Lewdog]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

You turds didn't seem too concerned about that when Slick Willy was getting his dick serviced in the Oval Office.

The hypocrisy of Trump haters is impossible to exaggerate.

There you go again Mr. Strawman. I've said all along that Clinton should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

 

[rightwinger]

They are? What evidence? LOL

Does it matter? The impeachment is happening with or without evidence. It won't pass through the Senate. With our without evidence. If you don't see this as a waste of time and money you're dumb. I've seen many of your posts and I don't think you are dumb. But if you disagree with me here then I'll be forced to change my mind.

Short term thinking. If he isn't impeached, it only has long term negative consequences for Republicans politically.

Trump cannot escape legally, what he might be able to escape politically.

One thing is for sure. He will have to leave office, one way or the other. At which time several prosecutors at both the federal, and state levels will be waiting with handcuffs when he leaves the White House grounds.

And if you don't think he isn't going face reprocussions for his crimes, then it is you that are dumb.

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

Ken Starr said this week he thinks a President can be indicted...

Kenny did a great job with WJC. You may only impeach a POTUS. It was written into the constitution on purpose as such so that we could not charge our Commander in Chief with a crime while he was the CiC. F*CK we have so many uneducated people in this country. Read a damn book.

It's not decided that a President can't be indicted... The President isn't ABOVE the law.

It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

LMAO. Are you serious? JFK slept with multiple women. As did WJC. What blackmail? He did this before he was POTUS unlike WJC and I don't think either of them did anything that egregious. You need to lighten up. Blackmail? LMAO.

It's something he can be blackmailed for... and if he slept with a porn star without a condom, there goes his stupid "germaphobe" defense... and makes it seem more likely the dossier might be real and he let prostitutes pee on him.

LMAO. What? So we are taking leaps of faith here? You would get thrown out of a courtroom with that babble.

Jesus, a germaphobe wouldn't have unprotected sex with a PORN STAR.

That's how we know he didn't, you ******* dumbass.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Kenny did a great job with WJC. You may only impeach a POTUS. It was written into the constitution on purpose as such so that we could not charge our Commander in Chief with a crime while he was the CiC. F*CK we have so many uneducated people in this country. Read a damn book.

It's not decided that a President can't be indicted... The President isn't ABOVE the law.

He needs to be impeached first. He is the most powerful man in the world. If he shoots you in the head, he is impeached and then indicted. He will not be impeached over this Russia scandal so why would he or better yet how would he be indicted? He can fire Mueller and Rosenstein tomorrow. He is their boss. F*CK. I don't have a dog in this fight but arguing with stupid people (like you) is annoying. The same would be true if HRC won with the whole server crap. She would never be impeach and therefore could not be indicted.

Please educate yourself and stop embarrassing yourself.

No... it doesn't say that in the Constitution and Nixon resigned before the Supreme Court could decide on it...

Read a ******* book.

Yes it does. You are a moron. The SCOTUS could opine on the law as it is written and the SCOTUS leans towards Trump. Christ, you are a moron. I'll bet you any amount of $$$ I am right. Bet your life that I am wrong. Tempt fate. I dare you. I am 100% positive I am right. 100%!!!

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

 

[rightwinger]

They are? What evidence? LOL

Does it matter? The impeachment is happening with or without evidence. It won't pass through the Senate. With our without evidence. If you don't see this as a waste of time and money you're dumb. I've seen many of your posts and I don't think you are dumb. But if you disagree with me here then I'll be forced to change my mind.

Short term thinking. If he isn't impeached, it only has long term negative consequences for Republicans politically.

Trump cannot escape legally, what he might be able to escape politically.

One thing is for sure. He will have to leave office, one way or the other. At which time several prosecutors at both the federal, and state levels will be waiting with handcuffs when he leaves the White House grounds.

And if you don't think he isn't going face reprocussions for his crimes, then it is you that are dumb.

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

If Trump shoots someone
He gets arrested.....Period

I can not believe someone really thinks the President could shoot someone in the head, and not go to jail or be indicted until Congress goes through the impeachment process...

This is ******* hilarious.

It would be an expedited impeachment. But yes that is the law. I cannot believe you don't know the law.

That is theory
Not the law

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

You turds didn't seem too concerned about that when Slick Willy was getting his dick serviced in the Oval Office.

The hypocrisy of Trump haters is impossible to exaggerate.

There you go again Mr. Strawman. I've said all along that Clinton should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

Yeah, right. I'm sure that's what you were saying when he was wriggling on the hook.

 

[Lewdog]

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

LMAO. Are you serious? JFK slept with multiple women. As did WJC. What blackmail? He did this before he was POTUS unlike WJC and I don't think either of them did anything that egregious. You need to lighten up. Blackmail? LMAO.

It's something he can be blackmailed for... and if he slept with a porn star without a condom, there goes his stupid "germaphobe" defense... and makes it seem more likely the dossier might be real and he let prostitutes pee on him.

LMAO. What? So we are taking leaps of faith here? You would get thrown out of a courtroom with that babble.

Jesus, a germaphobe wouldn't have unprotected sex with a PORN STAR.

That's how we know he didn't, you ******* dumbass.

Do you know why Cohen and Trump dropped their case against Stormy Daniels over the NDA?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Short term thinking. If he isn't impeached, it only has long term negative consequences for Republicans politically.

Trump cannot escape legally, what he might be able to escape politically.

One thing is for sure. He will have to leave office, one way or the other. At which time several prosecutors at both the federal, and state levels will be waiting with handcuffs when he leaves the White House grounds.

And if you don't think he isn't going face reprocussions for his crimes, then it is you that are dumb.

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

If Trump shoots someone
He gets arrested.....Period

I can not believe someone really thinks the President could shoot someone in the head, and not go to jail or be indicted until Congress goes through the impeachment process...

This is ******* hilarious.

It would be an expedited impeachment. But yes that is the law. I cannot believe you don't know the law.

I can't believe you THINK you know the law that hasn't even been decided by the Supreme Court. It's undecided law... It would go to the Supreme Court then become case law.

Why? Over an affair? That is so stupid.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Short term thinking. If he isn't impeached, it only has long term negative consequences for Republicans politically.

Trump cannot escape legally, what he might be able to escape politically.

One thing is for sure. He will have to leave office, one way or the other. At which time several prosecutors at both the federal, and state levels will be waiting with handcuffs when he leaves the White House grounds.

And if you don't think he isn't going face reprocussions for his crimes, then it is you that are dumb.

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

Ken Starr said this week he thinks a President can be indicted...

Kenny did a great job with WJC. You may only impeach a POTUS. It was written into the constitution on purpose as such so that we could not charge our Commander in Chief with a crime while he was the CiC. F*CK we have so many uneducated people in this country. Read a damn book.

It's not decided that a President can't be indicted... The President isn't ABOVE the law.

It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

He is their BOSS!! They cannot. He would fire them. I take it back. You are an idiot. Who do you think the Justice Dept. ultimately reports to?

 

[Lewdog]

It's not decided that a President can't be indicted... The President isn't ABOVE the law.

He needs to be impeached first. He is the most powerful man in the world. If he shoots you in the head, he is impeached and then indicted. He will not be impeached over this Russia scandal so why would he or better yet how would he be indicted? He can fire Mueller and Rosenstein tomorrow. He is their boss. F*CK. I don't have a dog in this fight but arguing with stupid people (like you) is annoying. The same would be true if HRC won with the whole server crap. She would never be impeach and therefore could not be indicted.

Please educate yourself and stop embarrassing yourself.

No... it doesn't say that in the Constitution and Nixon resigned before the Supreme Court could decide on it...

Read a ******* book.

Yes it does. You are a moron. The SCOTUS could opine on the law as it is written and the SCOTUS leans towards Trump. Christ, you are a moron. I'll bet you any amount of $$$ I am right. Bet your life that I am wrong. Tempt fate. I dare you. I am 100% positive I am right. 100%!!!

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a **** about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He needs to be impeached first. He is the most powerful man in the world. If he shoots you in the head, he is impeached and then indicted. He will not be impeached over this Russia scandal so why would he or better yet how would he be indicted? He can fire Mueller and Rosenstein tomorrow. He is their boss. F*CK. I don't have a dog in this fight but arguing with stupid people (like you) is annoying. The same would be true if HRC won with the whole server crap. She would never be impeach and therefore could not be indicted.

Please educate yourself and stop embarrassing yourself.

No... it doesn't say that in the Constitution and Nixon resigned before the Supreme Court could decide on it...

Read a ******* book.

Yes it does. You are a moron. The SCOTUS could opine on the law as it is written and the SCOTUS leans towards Trump. Christ, you are a moron. I'll bet you any amount of $$$ I am right. Bet your life that I am wrong. Tempt fate. I dare you. I am 100% positive I am right. 100%!!!

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a **** about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

 

[Lewdog]

No... it doesn't say that in the Constitution and Nixon resigned before the Supreme Court could decide on it...

Read a ******* book.

Yes it does. You are a moron. The SCOTUS could opine on the law as it is written and the SCOTUS leans towards Trump. Christ, you are a moron. I'll bet you any amount of $$$ I am right. Bet your life that I am wrong. Tempt fate. I dare you. I am 100% positive I am right. 100%!!!

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a **** about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes it does. You are a moron. The SCOTUS could opine on the law as it is written and the SCOTUS leans towards Trump. Christ, you are a moron. I'll bet you any amount of $$$ I am right. Bet your life that I am wrong. Tempt fate. I dare you. I am 100% positive I am right. 100%!!!

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a **** about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

 

[francoHFW]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

You turds didn't seem too concerned about that when Slick Willy was getting his dick serviced in the Oval Office.

The hypocrisy of Trump haters is impossible to exaggerate.

I don't care now either what he does in his private life.

The OP is another example of how Fox is a disgrace lying and brainwashing the chumps... And it's the best of right-wing media LOL....