newfie
Well-Known Member
Yes it is for Drumpf.
it was normal for both candidates. let me know if you have figured out whether Hillary is for or against TPP
Yes it is for Drumpf.
Trump is an idiot. The FBI already investigated. Clinton screwed up and believed she was above the law. FBI Director Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.
/end
On one topic?????
So what's your point.Yes it is for Drumpf.
That is my point.So what's your point.
Talk is cheap, actions is what matters.
A pardon is a pardon, yes that is correct.The act of pardoning is the same though.
Everything is different.
....and Chelsea's man may have to actually work hard to keep that $10 Million condo.
A pardon is a pardon, yes that is correct.
President Nixon was possibly facing actual Federal and State charges, and resigned to avoid impeachment. He could have very well faced criminal charges. There were already criminal indictments against his aides. He was an 'unindicted co-conspirator'.
What has Hillary Clinton been indicted for? I have yet to see her charged with a crime, in spite of innumerable investigations.
I can't think of any President, other than Nixon, who faced criminal charges.
To equate them is ridiculous.
Married to Medvedski (sp).....in a $10 million condo......the taxes alone would do him in!! His dad was in jail for some investment stuff. I don't know if he's related to SorosI thought Chelsea was married to a relative of George Soro so how can they be hurting for money?
Everything in my post is correct.LOL
Talk about Trump flip-flopping.
You stated twice that Nixon was not charged and never indicted.
Then you said Nixon faced criminal charges.
Nixon never faced criminal charges ... most people thought he should ... just like most people think Hillary should.
They seem identical except Hillary's transgressions were before entering the White House.
Trump is an idiot. The FBI already investigated. Clinton screwed up and believed she was above the law. FBI Director Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.
/end
Maybe someone explained to Trump that the President has no control, and shouldn't, about who the Justice Department indicts.
Lol.
That is a bit naive.
The Attorney General is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the President.
Separation of power is between the branches of the Government.Get back to me about separation of powers.
Could there be influence?
Clearly...obviously.
Is it legal?
No, and I think you know that.
Separation of power is between the branches of the Government.
The Justice Dept is part of the Executive branch.
The President, as head of the Executive branch, is in charge of the Justice Dept and able to direct it's policies and activities.
Not "legally" as you pointed out but if the Pres says he wants something and "asks" the AG to "look into it" please, "what do you think will happen".So the President can direct the Justice Department to indict citizens?
So Obama could indict Hillary?
When Trump is Prez, he can indict...anyone?
Follow this through.
Yes, a President can fill positions...
Once he does, it's not up to him after the fact.
Not "legally" as you pointed out but if the Pres says he wants something and "asks" the AG to "look into it" please, "what do you think will happen".
Either the AG does so or he/she resigns. Strong message to the next AG.
Is it good to mix politics with law enforcement? No
Does it happen? All the time