Home› Tug Tavern

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

The President is above the law

insinceredawginsinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
in Tug Tavern
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • Options
    PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 41,866
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary
    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SledogSledog Member Posts: 30,831
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    But does he have a phone and a pen and free guns for ISIS and Mexican drug cartels?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 41,866
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    Slow legal system.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,920
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    He isn't the first person to argue it. President needs to be impeached first before he can be prosecuted for violating the law. There are sound legal arguments in support of this. Of course you have O'Keefed the shittiest attorney this side of the Pecos and yourself, the dumbest mother fucker this side of Hondo confused by the argument.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,183
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    He isn't the first person to argue it. President needs to be impeached first before he can be prosecuted for violating the law. There are sound legal arguments in support of this. Of course you have O'Keefed the shittiest attorney this side of the Pecos and yourself, the dumbest mother fucker this side of Hondo confused by the argument.
    Where does that living, breathing Constitution of ours say the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes while in office?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,920
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    He isn't the first person to argue it. President needs to be impeached first before he can be prosecuted for violating the law. There are sound legal arguments in support of this. Of course you have O'Keefed the shittiest attorney this side of the Pecos and yourself, the dumbest mother fucker this side of Hondo confused by the argument.
    Where does that living, breathing Constitution of ours say the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes while in office?
    I never said the Constitution said it my strawman ass fucking Kunt of a friend. I said there are sound legal arguments supporting that position. Of course you and sound legal arguments are unfamiliar with each other.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,183
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    He isn't the first person to argue it. President needs to be impeached first before he can be prosecuted for violating the law. There are sound legal arguments in support of this. Of course you have O'Keefed the shittiest attorney this side of the Pecos and yourself, the dumbest mother fucker this side of Hondo confused by the argument.
    Where does that living, breathing Constitution of ours say the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes while in office?
    I never said the Constitution said it my strawman ass fucking Kunt of a friend. I said there are sound legal arguments supporting that position. Of course you and sound legal arguments are unfamiliar with each other.
    “Sound legal arguments” smack! What “law” do these fabulous arguments derive from then?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,424
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    This should make a great article of impeachment

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,920
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

    “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

    The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

    “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.


    Hardly shocking the O'Keefed the worst fucking attorney around is ignorant of this. Can you imagine the poor saps who are actually dumb enough to hire this dumbfuck? O'Keefed must have his malpractice defense guys on speed dial.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    insinceredawginsinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    He isn't the first person to argue it. President needs to be impeached first before he can be prosecuted for violating the law. There are sound legal arguments in support of this. Of course you have O'Keefed the shittiest attorney this side of the Pecos and yourself, the dumbest mother fucker this side of Hondo confused by the argument.
    Where does that living, breathing Constitution of ours say the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes while in office?
    I never said the Constitution said it my strawman ass fucking Kunt of a friend. I said there are sound legal arguments supporting that position. Of course you and sound legal arguments are unfamiliar with each other.
    I'm sure these sound legal arguments coincidentally did not exist between 2009 and 2017 but miraculously appeared now that your boy is in office. Bitchass partisan Kunt.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,424
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    If Trump murdered someone he could be impeached one day, convicted the next, and led out in chains to stand trial which is pretty much what the dem base dreams about every day
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,920
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    Thanks for the 2016 hot take.

    Trump’s attorney argued this yesterday.
    He isn't the first person to argue it. President needs to be impeached first before he can be prosecuted for violating the law. There are sound legal arguments in support of this. Of course you have O'Keefed the shittiest attorney this side of the Pecos and yourself, the dumbest mother fucker this side of Hondo confused by the argument.
    Where does that living, breathing Constitution of ours say the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes while in office?
    I never said the Constitution said it my strawman ass fucking Kunt of a friend. I said there are sound legal arguments supporting that position. Of course you and sound legal arguments are unfamiliar with each other.
    I'm sure these sound legal arguments coincidentally did not exist between 2009 and 2017 but miraculously appeared now that your boy is in office. Bitchass partisan Kunt.
    Well a fucking moron like you would think that.


    In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

    “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

    The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,183
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

    “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

    The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

    “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.


    Hardly shocking the O'Keefed the worst fucking attorney around is ignorant of this. Can you imagine the poor saps who are actually dumb enough to hire this dumbfuck? O'Keefed must have his malpractice defense guys on speed dial.

    I’m actually well aware of that opinion and how it came to be written with that dicta included.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,920
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    Gosh, was 1973 prior to 2009? You're such a mouthy fucking moron IC.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    insinceredawginsinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    Gosh, was 1973 prior to 2009? You're such a mouthy fucking moron IC.

    Welcome back to the board. I noticed you ran and hid yesterday after I provided you the opening statement from Bill Taylor. You never uttered a single word on it. I wonder why.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,920
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    Gosh, was 1973 prior to 2009? You're such a mouthy fucking moron IC.

    Welcome back to the board. I noticed you ran and hid yesterday after I provided you the opening statement from Bill Taylor. You never uttered a single word on it. I wonder why.
    Yeah, I change the topic too if I was a fucking moron like you IC.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    insinceredawginsinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    Gosh, was 1973 prior to 2009? You're such a mouthy fucking moron IC.

    Welcome back to the board. I noticed you ran and hid yesterday after I provided you the opening statement from Bill Taylor. You never uttered a single word on it. I wonder why.
    Yeah, I change the topic too if I was a fucking moron like you IC.

    Got it. You're scared to talk about it. What a pussy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,424
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    Gosh, was 1973 prior to 2009? You're such a mouthy fucking moron IC.

    Welcome back to the board. I noticed you ran and hid yesterday after I provided you the opening statement from Bill Taylor. You never uttered a single word on it. I wonder why.
    Did you ever get the rest of his statement? Was it on TV? In HD?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    insinceredawginsinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    Gosh, was 1973 prior to 2009? You're such a mouthy fucking moron IC.

    Welcome back to the board. I noticed you ran and hid yesterday after I provided you the opening statement from Bill Taylor. You never uttered a single word on it. I wonder why.
    Yeah, I change the topic too if I was a fucking moron like you IC.

    Who said anything about 1973? I'm just implying that you didn't agree with the "sound legal arguments" during Obama's tenure cause you're a bitchass partisan Kunt.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.