Giuliani gets to the constitutional question on presidential indictments

TreeFrogTrader said:
Which ones? You quoted my post that asked how the charges against Carter Page are coming along?

I dont care about Mannafort's taxes from eight years ago.
More...

Sure. You got manafort, which you don’t care about, and Concord Management.
 
UsualName said:
Sure. You got manafort, which you don’t care about, and Concord Management.
More...

So. No reply on the Carter Page question.

Guess the feds need more time on that.

And Concord Management? Heh. Okay. That's what you want to use as an example of Mr. "Speedy-Pace" Mueller moving right along at a "speedy-pace." A case where his prosecutors had to argue to the court that they were not ready for trial so the judge told them to get ready then. And you want to use that case as an example of things to come for Mueller prosecutions on Russian interference? Ahh, okay, sign me up. I will watch. It has been fun so far. Can you spell "CLOWN SHOW" boys and girls. The judge there already rejected the whiny little argument that you are also using- ie. poor mueller is being victimized by defendants who are not cooperating by playing muellers game...they are not supposed to be actually defending themselves. To which the judge replied........get going arsewipe....you are the prosecutor....you indicted them.....that is your job.
 
Last edited:
jem said:
the ever convincing kindergarten rules argument.
very impressive scholarship piezoe.
I take it you have no case law...

but fortunately for you I studied and love international law which in the beginning International Law was very much based on the rules made by the big kids with the cookie jars


Ask a five year... what happens if the principal has control of the cookie jar and he or she runs the entire school system and is the commander in chief of the army?

Ask the five year old - if you desire the cookies should you rush in an try and grab em or if you should follow the already documented rules?

Now, that I think about its pretty clear you should probably follow the current DOJ guideline. You can't indict a sitting president... for obvious reasons.

AAA and the DOJ are pretty damn close to being correct even if there is no controlling case law.
More...
There is no law and no guideline, only Opinions. Yours is wrong. Mine is right. What's going to be interesting is whether that rat Nunes swims toward or away from the sinking ship. My guess is that even Nunes will refuse to go down with the ship.

That miserable excuse for a lawyer, Julie-Annie, has once again confused you. He confused guidance with guidelines (two different things!) The DOJ has no guidelines with regard to whether a sitting President can be indicted. On that issue it has only contradictory guidance (not guideline as Julie-Annie incorrectly stated.) here is where to go if you are interested in something other than Julie-Annie's nonsense. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/presidential-indictment/560957/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top