Search results

Oh my god! It's from "Infowars"

Sadly, I'm afraid they meant a lot to the investors who lost money because of Trumps lying and lack of ethics. Sadly they meant something to Trump's contractors who didn't get paid what they were promised. Sadly, because there are SIX of them all associated with one liar who became our...

Don't be ridiculous. Why don't you compare the time to recover with the time to recover from the Depression. Wouldn't that be somewhat more Appropriate? It probably hadn't occurred to you that the time to recover from a recession is loosely correlated to the depth of the recession (I hope...

Murdoch publications are famous for yellow journalism (https://newrepublic.com/article/92429/rupert-murdoch-international-newspaper-empire) And since Murdoch acquired it, the WSJ is no different than the other Rupert Murdoch controlled publications. Let's examine the WSJ article's opening...

It is a mistake, in my humble opinion, to use Trump's name and the word "Diplomatic" in the same sentence. If there is any diplomat here it would be Pompeo who is a smart and capable. Sadly, Pompeo is also a lying opportunist, devoid of any ethical principles on which to stand. The latter...

I'd give this a triple like if possible.

fine, but is there anything I posted that is incorrect? If so, what is it? from ...

That's true when the portfolio is well managed. In Trumps case he was leveraged to the hilt when the casinos went under. Owed money to 72 different banks. he was ruined with nothing left except assets exempt from creditors. That's when the Russian mafioso stepped in and saved his ass. He's...

Ha ha ha, now you're trying to take credit for my argument, even though you have little understanding of it. . . Why not do your own thinking and not depend on me to articulate the case for why the President can not pardon himself? To suggest that, because the Constitution nor any court has...

Bullshit! Don't be ridiculous. Now you are getting defensive. Just argue the facts and drop the bullshit. Dershowitz could counter with what seems like a plausible argument. Where's yours. You don't practice law any more, do you? Thank god! There is an ability spectrum among lawyers, as...

By the way this opinion you posted from Gravante illustrates that not all Lawyers are idiots. There are clearly exceptions. Thanks for posting something logical.

You're inadvertently admitting here that you respond without ever reading my posts.

Right.

If you want to proffer your own opinion then do so, but please give us a logical argument to back it up. If you want to comment on my opinion then please demonstrate that you have read it by offering a logical criticism of my argument, which was relatively detailed. And forget the "lefty"...

The "remedy" in the constitution merely removes from office a government officer who Congress determines has acted in inappropriately. Impeachment is constitutionally limited to removal from office! After that, or even before that, if there is sufficient evidence of a crime having been...

There doesn't need to be any judicial precedent for the President pardoning himself, because there is already constitutional law based on the premise that the President, not being a monarch, is not above the law. That settles it. But I don't dismiss the fact that there are idiots in this...

Oh, you finally figured it out. There is more than one topic. One is whether the President can pardon himself (He can't). Its absurd to say that "no one knows." I have given my argument why it is absurd to say that. If you want to respond, then offer a reasonable criticism of my argument...

I stand by that. It is absurd for the reason I stated. It is a trivial opinion because it assumes the Congress might act in a ridiculous manner and not immediately impeach any President who attempted to Pardon him or herself, and that prosecutors would not challenge any such pardon. No one...

That's precisely the kind of thing I had in mind. Very perceptive. In a trivial sense, someone like Dershowitz, or you, are correct when you say "no one knows". But only in the trivial sense. Because what you and Dershowitz are falling back on, which we ought not to do, is the assumption...

For originalists, as Scalia was, the question has already been answered more than adequately. The founders in their discussion left no doubt that the President was not above the law. In fact the Congress is given some very limited immunity, but the President NONE. This business about whether...