Dershowitz: Targeting Trump's lawyer should worry us all

noise said:
ROFL..The ENTIRE COUNTRY IS WARMONGERING -this ain't Bolton.
Even Howard Dean was saying we gotta striiike!!!

you are so freaking dumb azz
Click to expand...

Bullshit!
The day before yesterday you were all saying we had to leave Syria.
Yesterday Bolton was hired and today we are going to bomb Syria.
Go fuck yourself you terminally dishonest pile of human feces.
 
Havana Moon said:
It is truly a Bizarro world we now live in where the Left defends the FBI and CIA!!!!!!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not especially. Moderate democrats always believed in rule of law and when a warrant was issued by a neutral judge that is what trust in the system
is based upon, that and the knowledge that not just any clown has the stuff to be an FBI agent or CIA agent. You are also not talking about
those who also supported a special counsel investigation of Nixon.

When far left liberals and dissidents oppose the police powers it is often because the executive branch is abusing it for their own gain.
That is decidedly not the case here. The executive is attacking those police powers because it is a threat to him because he knows
he is hiding crime.

On the other hand, it is hilarious to watch conservatives attack the state police institutions and lie about having opposed the
4 year sex scandal investigation of Bill Clinton.
 
Rune said:
Bullshit!
The day before yesterday you were all saying we had to leave Syria.
Yesterday Bolton was hired and today we are going to bomb Syria.
Go fuck yourself you terminally dishonest pile of human feces.
Click to expand...
you have lost your mind/timeline..i realize you have no concept other then now and then, but chronology matters.

*Bolton did it*..anyways before i clik you off a missile strike is not interventionism. It ain't good, but it's not a foreign war.
all the western dudes are agitating for fun
 
Rune said:
Bullshit.
Click to expand...
dumb azz

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/...nal-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html
would the Constitution allow Mr. Mueller to indict Mr. Trump if he finds evidence of criminal conduct?

The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.

“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale.
 
noise said:
dumb azz

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/...nal-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html
would the Constitution allow Mr. Mueller to indict Mr. Trump if he finds evidence of criminal conduct?

The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.

“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale.
Click to expand...

And I can find ten links that say the opposite.
It isn't covered in the Constitution so you are lying out your ass as usual.
 
noise said:
you have lost your mind/timeline..i realize you have no concept other then now and then, but chronology matters.

*Bolton did it*..anyways before i clik you off a missile strike is not interventionism. It ain't good, but it's not a foreign war.
all the western dudes are agitating for fun
Click to expand...

Yes chronology matters and my timeline is precise.

Bolton did exactly as every lefty predicted, you were wrong as ever now eat shit.
 
Darth Omar said:
Dershowitz is right about a couple of things.

The first one is obvious: liberals would be screaming bloody murder if a prosecutor raided Clinton’s lawyer’s office [omg, imagine the stuff they would find though. Must be someway to cheat the law and do it] And they can save their breath denying it.

The second thing is related to the first and I brought it up in my OP yesterday: where are the libertarians amongst the liberals? It used to be that for all of progressive’s many warts, they did at least have a strong libertarian bent.

But Mueller does an end-around the 4th amendment to get to Trump’s lawyer’s papers—-and not a peep out of them. What prosecutor wouldn’t want to raid a subject’s lawyer’s office? Mueller didn’t let a little thing like constitution get in the way, so he has another prosecutor do it for him.

That’s called skirting the law; the Swamp is famous for it [see: changing words to keep from indicting Hillary] and it’s a big reason us Normals and Deplorable’s loathe the DC establishment.

Thanks to Mueller’s witch hunt, from now on people will have less confidence in attorney/client privilege because the 6th amendment is just words on a piece of paper to a determined prosecutor.
Click to expand...

From now on people will have less confidence in attorney/client privlege? :lolup: :rofl2:

Hardly. What they will examine is to not hire a crook to do your criminal dirty work for you.

And, BTW, spare us your concocted "would" bullshit. It grows wearisome.
 
noise said:
remeber the game here is to kill the Trump presidency.
That's been the goal from the start by Brennan and the FBI's 7th floor.
Rosenweasel's motives might be more plebeian - protect his butt from FISA examination...don't know
Or he could just be a dweeb pawn in this game..

Did you see any coverage on Xi's blinking on tariffs last night> I saw a blurb on Fox -doubtful if Fake News carried it. This after days of frenetic coverage of "trade war"

Keep making noise. distract. salacious coverage..degrade the message..the modus operandi
Click to expand...

Ruh roh! There's that 7th floor cabal again!

Salacious coverage of Trump fucking a porn star right after the birth of his son? The coverage isn't salacious, idiot. The coverage is fact. Trump's behavior was salacious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top