TrumPutinGate

#6,078
#6,078
BowlBrother85 said:
Hardly the same thing as hiring KT McFarland as deputy National Security Adviser from Fox Business even though she hadn't worked in government in 30 years. Then you have Monica Crowley who had to resign because she is a serial plagiarizer.
Click to expand...
Sure. It's worse. The networks are trying to write stories about people that employ close family members..

What conflict is there in hiring someone who used to work at a network? It's worse when people like Stephanopolous, etc. try to cover people they once worked for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,079
#6,079
MakeTNGrtAgain said:
He's already said he hasn't had contact. He says he didn't intend to and the world burns
Click to expand...

Impeach him. The Dems will lose votes in the upcoming elections, the stock market and hedge funds will tank. So go ahead, if Russia is so important then let the m'fer burn. Can't wait, I'm ready for the purge.
 
#6,080
#6,080
Velo Vol said:
Thank you for saying what needs to be said, anonymous official.

DAOpLrhXcAAYovm.jpg
Click to expand...

Anonymous official is the next Time person of the year
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,083
#6,083
MakeTNGrtAgain said:
Dershowitz was intentionally misleading people in this, he is not a prosecutor. Special Counsel does not mean Special Prosecutor, He will have the full ability to investigate every aspect of the 2016 campaign and the Administration and then he will turnover his findings to the Department of Justice, who if necessary will indict and prosecute. I will not be surprised if there is information on both Trump and Clinton that makes people shudder.
Click to expand...

This is what MakeTNGrtAgain had to say about Dershowitz earlier... He has made the rounds on the cable news channels today. I think he did all 3.
 
#6,084
#6,084
AirVol said:
http://insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/55962

What do our resident lawyers say about this?
Click to expand...


Yes, the power is limited. And, there is authority for the proposition that the president cannot be charged with any crime, that he is immune. But he can be impeached for criminal conduct, e.g. high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump's personal problem is going to be Comey. If the reports are true, and Comey testifies to them, I just think there is no alternative but to impeach.

If the GOP House yields to partisan pressure not to do so, they create quite a risk in 2018 for themselves. Whether Trump did anything wrong with Russia or not, you just can't have a president pressuring the FBI chief during an investigation and then firing him when he refuses.

It is simply unacceptable. Period.

I'm frankly surprised that impeachment is not already seriously being discussed. It could be that Ryan is praying that Mueller does the dirty work, and finds a way to embarrass Trump to the point Trump resigns on his own.

If not, and if Comey confirms what is in these news reports, the pressure on Ryan and the house GOP to impeach Trump will be enormous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#6,085
#6,085
lawgator1 said:
Yes, the power is limited. And, there is authority for the proposition that the president cannot be charged with any crime, that he is immune. But he can be impeached for criminal conduct, e.g. high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump's personal problem is going to be Comey. If the reports are true, and Comey testifies to them, I just think there is no alternative but to impeach.

If the GOP House yields to partisan pressure not to do so, they create quite a risk in 2018 for themselves. Whether Trump did anything wrong with Russia or not, you just can't have a president pressuring the FBI chief during an investigation and then firing him when he refuses.

It is simply unacceptable. Period.

I'm frankly surprised that impeachment is not already seriously being discussed. It could be that Ryan is praying that Mueller does the dirty work, and finds a way to embarrass Trump to the point Trump resigns on his own.

If not, and if Comey confirms what is in these news reports, the pressure on Ryan and the house GOP to impeach Trump will be enormous.
Click to expand...
soon.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,089
#6,089
Members and staffers from the Trump campaign have begun to hire lawyers. They feel that Trump should help cover their legal costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,090
#6,090
carlos86 said:
Members and staffers from the Trump campaign have begun to hire lawyers.
Click to expand...

I posted an article yesterday which stated that the scope of the investigation has expanded to include potential coverup. Some of those Doc numbers that Obama may have preserved might have turned up missing. Pure speculation on my part.
 
#6,092
#6,092
newarkvol said:
... in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318%

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters.
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes
Click to expand...

Good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,093
#6,093
hog88 said:
Good.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm curious why the same rationale is not appropriate for states, or even counties. Why are states not allowed to have a county electoral college system? States are forced by law to count all votes equally. The federal government can have one type of election system and then turn around and deny states that same right. It seems all of you "states' rights" people would be bothered by this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,094
#6,094
luthervol said:
Again, I'm curious why the same rationale is not appropriate for states, or even counties. Why are states not allowed to have a county electoral college system? States are forced by law to count all votes equally. The federal government can have one type of election system and then turn around and deny states that same right. It seems all of you "states' rights" people would be bothered by this.
Click to expand...

Why do you want some states to be even more significantly more powerful than other states in the United States?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,095
#6,095
tumscalcium said:
Why do you want some states to be even more significantly more powerful than other states in the United States?
Click to expand...

Why do you want the voters of some states to be more powerful than the voters of other states?

California may have a little more impact on people who live outside of California than does South Dakota. What % of the nation's GDP comes from California, S. Dakota?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,096
#6,096
tumscalcium said:
Why do you want some states to be even more significantly more powerful than other states in the United States?
Click to expand...

Why do you want some counties in a state to be even more significantly powerful than other counties?

My question was, "if it's good for the nation, then why not the states?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,097
#6,097
luthervol said:
Why do you want the voters of some states to be more powerful than the voters of other states?

California may have a little more impact on people who live outside of California than does South Dakota. What % of the nation's GDP comes from California, S. Dakota?
Click to expand...

I like having things separated as much as possible. No reason millions in one city in Cali should be able to vote for policy change in Wyoming.

This is by far and away the most even it can be. Larger populated states still have much more power over others.

*to clarify I'm speaking of policy changes through reps from those states. I'm sure you knew what I was saying.
 
#6,098
#6,098
luthervol said:
Why do you want some counties in a state to be even more significantly powerful than other counties?

My question was, "if it's good for the nation, then why not the states?.
Click to expand...

I don't. You do.

What's good for Cali may not be good for Idaho.

Bottom line, two cities or two states shouldn't control the entire country.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,100
#6,100
luthervol said:
Again, I'm curious why the same rationale is not appropriate for states, or even counties. Why are states not allowed to have a county electoral college system? States are forced by law to count all votes equally. The federal government can have one type of election system and then turn around and deny states that same right. It seems all of you "states' rights" people would be bothered by this.
Click to expand...

Because the electoral college is seeking equal representation between states at the federal level, as opposed to equal representation between people at the local level.

The Union would never have happened, nor survived if the electoral college was not implemented. If federal policy was shoved down state throats due to population differences, those states would take their ball and go.

You guys and gals that are screeching about the electoral college, I'll bet it's a very recent phenom. I wonder why...

If you live in California and don't like that Wyoming gets a higher representation per person, quit crying and move to Wyoming.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top