Weisselberg Indicted

[struth]

They are allowed to firebomb Courthouses, attempted to invade the White House, assault people, destroy property, burn churches etc....it's their right to do so because they feel they have been wronged.

Strawman.

Nah, I was simply responding to the poster

 

[colfax_m]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

That is not the same argument.

That was a Congressional subpoena on executive branch material part of his official duties.

Trump fought a criminal subpoena on a private matter.

The difference is night and day.

It's very much the same argument.

It wasn't on material, but a person to come testify...Obama was wrong...but he made the argument.

Well Trump's case was two cases, he was right about the House's request, at least the Court agreed...and the Court disagreed on the Vance matter, he turned the documents over...but made similar arguments, as outlined in his brief, loaded with case law to support their argument which I provided.

Look, I get you are using adjectives given to you by leftist propagandist, and were unaware that the arguments aren't new, unique to Trump or anything that other Presidents, including your Dear Leader Obama have used.....it's just silly....that you continue to hold on to them even when confronted with the facts.

With that said, it's no different then you holding on to your silly belief that, any day now he'll be indicted.

It’s absolutely not the same argument. Obama argument was discussing separation of powers and executive privilege.

Trump was arguing that a state can’t investigate him for committing a crime in his personal life. No separation of powers argument. No executive privilege argument.

Geez dude...I provided a link to the brief filed by Trump...he argued seperation of powers...did you not even bother to read it?

no trump was not arguing that at all....he simply was arguing he can't forced to comply with a sub while President of the United States.

Why are you simply parroting these clear propagandist talking points when the actual brief was already provided for you? Why can't you accept reality?

His argument was totally different than Obama.

One subpoena was criminal, one was congressional. One was for official executive branch information, one was for private information.

This isn’t the same. It’s night and day. Not even close.

 

[colfax_m]

The only thing Trump owns is your side, and you don't even see it.

I’m not the one debasing myself to make excuses for a loser.

 

[hadit]

No other administration had to deal with the level of hate shown to his.

Nixon was always complaining about people out to get him too and as we all know he was so innocent.

Your back must hurt from carrying Trump’s water.

Because if somebody else was guilty, so is everyone you hate?

 

[struth]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

That is not the same argument.

That was a Congressional subpoena on executive branch material part of his official duties.

Trump fought a criminal subpoena on a private matter.

The difference is night and day.

It's very much the same argument.

It wasn't on material, but a person to come testify...Obama was wrong...but he made the argument.

Well Trump's case was two cases, he was right about the House's request, at least the Court agreed...and the Court disagreed on the Vance matter, he turned the documents over...but made similar arguments, as outlined in his brief, loaded with case law to support their argument which I provided.

Look, I get you are using adjectives given to you by leftist propagandist, and were unaware that the arguments aren't new, unique to Trump or anything that other Presidents, including your Dear Leader Obama have used.....it's just silly....that you continue to hold on to them even when confronted with the facts.

With that said, it's no different then you holding on to your silly belief that, any day now he'll be indicted.

It’s absolutely not the same argument. Obama argument was discussing separation of powers and executive privilege.

Trump was arguing that a state can’t investigate him for committing a crime in his personal life. No separation of powers argument. No executive privilege argument.

Geez dude...I provided a link to the brief filed by Trump...he argued seperation of powers...did you not even bother to read it?

no trump was not arguing that at all....he simply was arguing he can't forced to comply with a sub while President of the United States.

Why are you simply parroting these clear propagandist talking points when the actual brief was already provided for you? Why can't you accept reality?

His argument was totally different than Obama.

One subpoena was criminal, one was congressional. One was for official executive branch information, one was for private information.

This isn’t the same. It’s night and day. Not even close.

Trump used the same bases to make the argument. Presidential immunities.

Why don't you actual read the brief? I mean you've been missing on everything thus far, you might be wrong here....

 

[struth]

No other administration had to deal with the level of hate shown to his.

Nixon was always complaining about people out to get him too and as we all know he was so innocent.

Your back must hurt from carrying Trump’s water.

Because if somebody else was guilty, so is everyone you hate?

Grouping people together is typical of the left. It's how they have always done things, it's pure prejudice....but justifiable because the "others" don't belong to the party, and think for themselves...that alone is a crime to leftist

 

[colfax_m]

Nah, I was simply responding to the poster

By creating a strawman of the other side.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump used the same bases to make the argument. Presidential immunities.

No president ever claimed immunities from state criminal subpoenas.

Nixon tried to claim immunities from federal criminal proceedings. He was slapped down.

Clinton tried to claim immunities from civil proceedings. He was slapped down.

Trump tried to claim immunities from state criminal proceedings. Everyone knew this would be slapped down too.

The basis for this argument is NOT the same as claiming executive privilege. It’s totally different.

 

[jc456]

No other administration had to deal with the level of hate shown to his.

Nixon was always complaining about people out to get him too and as we all know he was so innocent.

Your back must hurt from carrying Trump’s water.

Because if somebody else was guilty, so is everyone you hate?

Grouping people together is typical of the left. It's how they have always done things, it's pure prejudice....but justifiable because the "others" don't belong to the party, and think for themselves...that alone is a crime to leftist

truth is inconvenient and doesn't fit their objective. there's that.

 

[dudmuck]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

Here ya go, Clown.

GOP senator: Obama ‘believes he is above the law’

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said courts are “acting in the right way” against Obama.

thehill.com

^^^^That is a link.^^^^^

thats just some screaming no-name republican in wyoming. If Obama were breaking the law, the republican house would have impeached.

Trump made 55 EOs per year, where obama made 35 per year. And judges block Trump's EOs more.

Federal Judges Increasingly Block Presidential Orders

In January, a little-known federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked new Trump administration rules that would have allowed employers to deny women free birth control benefits on religious and moral grounds.Judge Wendy Beetlestone’s tool? A nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the Trump...

www.voanews.com

 

[colfax_m]

Because if somebody else was guilty, so is everyone you hate?

I said no such thing.

Just pointing out that whining about “political persecution” is not an excuse for illegal behavior.

 

[jc456]

Because if somebody else was guilty, so is everyone you hate?

I said no such thing.

Just pointing out that whining about “political persecution” is not an excuse for illegal behavior.

to which there was none. you can't prove it.

 

[struth]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

Here ya go, Clown.

GOP senator: Obama ‘believes he is above the law’

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said courts are “acting in the right way” against Obama.

thehill.com

^^^^That is a link.^^^^^

thats just some screaming no-name republican in wyoming. If Obama were breaking the law, the republican house would have impeached.

Trump made 55 EOs per year, where obama made 35 per year. And judges block Trump's EOs more.

Federal Judges Increasingly Block Presidential Orders

In January, a little-known federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked new Trump administration rules that would have allowed employers to deny women free birth control benefits on religious and moral grounds.Judge Wendy Beetlestone’s tool? A nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the Trump...

www.voanews.com

hahah republicans weren't going to impeach over a Court case.

 

[martybegan]

The only thing Trump owns is your side, and you don't even see it.

I’m not the one debasing myself to make excuses for a loser.

Yep, still not seeing it.

 

[colfax_m]

Yep, still not seeing it.

You don’t see it. Trump owns you. He does the thinking for you. Your job isn’t to think, it’s to enable him.

 

[colfax_m]

to which there was none. you can't prove it.

Would have loved to see Nixon face trial but it couldn’t happen.

 

[martybegan]

Yep, still not seeing it.

You don’t see it. Trump owns you. He does the thinking for you. Your job isn’t to think, it’s to enable him.

Says the person who's party is by definition collectivists.....

It's amazing how dense and idiotic you are.

 

[Winco]

Yep, still not seeing it.

You don’t see it. Trump owns you. He does the thinking for you. Your job isn’t to think, it’s to enable him.

TOM

trump owns me

 

[struth]

Yep, still not seeing it.

You don’t see it. Trump owns you. He does the thinking for you. Your job isn’t to think, it’s to enable him.

nah man....from the looks of your post, it's Trump that owns you....and your thoughts, despite reality are still based on leftwing propagandist talking points.....despite reality

 

[colfax_m]

Says the person who's party is by definition collectivists.....

By definition? You know that doesn’t make any sense right?

Just take a look at CPAC and tell me the Republican Party isn’t owned by Trump. Hell, their party platform last year was basically “the platform is whatever Trump says it is”.

You guys will make any excuse for Trump and you know it.