Trump meeting rocket man

[Kirkland Laing]

Report: Dems Need Wave Unseen In 40 Years To Overcome GOP In Midterms

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/b...term-elections

Its like a banana Republic with all the gerrymandering.

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.

Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.

Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.

Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.

Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?

Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

[...]

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?

Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

[...]

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

The England has all kinds of political ties to Russia. Every smoke screen you bring up actually takes place in ur own country. It's a bit hypocritical of you. I don't get why you don't focus on the issues in your own country like nazi dogs and the erosion of freedom. Why is Russia planting fake news such an issue. We all try to influence elections, England, the US, Israel Russia and more. Are you surprised? The collusion thing is a joke compared to the Hillary cash trail and out democratic senate taking money from Iron man Putin