The Trump Presidency...

You know what?
The fact that you went away and put time into even making that has proved my point better than could have possibly imagined doing myself :)

T
R
I
G
G
E
R
E
D
ANYTHING I do would prove a point better than ANYTHING you could ever, ever, eveeeeeer, imagine ;)
1579354343518.png
 
Lucky the Orange one is above the law.


I think anyone would be arrested for whatever the sceptic OSA is.

As the late Bernard put it so well....
That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I give confidential security briefings.
You leak.
He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.

May he negotiate the red tape at the pearly gates swiftly and with minimal paperwork.
 
Lucky the Orange one is above the law.


I think anyone would be arrested for whatever the sceptic OSA is.

As the late Bernard put it so well....



May he negotiate the red tape at the pearly gates swiftly and with minimal paperwork.

ahem, Bollocks. The issue isn’t that the orange one is above the law, the fact is that his election to the office of president makes the law completely irrelevant. You’re letting your TDS get in the way of remembering what power the president has to classify and declassify whatever information he likes.

The President, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

Department of the Navy vs Egan. 484 U.s. 518 (1988 )
 
Last edited:
I am well aware he can reclassify anything he wants.

That's a legal and bureaucratic matter conducted on behalf of the state.

He was being buster gonads on front of a paying audience...

Do try and keep up, Minister.
 
That's a legal and bureaucratic matter conducted on behalf of the state.

He was being buster gonads on front of a paying audience...
You really still don’t get it do you?

the right to declassify things isn’t limited to doing it for bureaucratic and administrative reasons

it’s for whatever reasons he likes... and do you know why that is?

Its because he’s the ******* President

:queen: :salut::dance::1:
 
the right to declassify things isn’t limited to doing it for bureaucratic and administrative reasons
According to the Court case you cited, it is limited to the purpose of determining, "whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information."

Unless you're claiming that all attendees at that talk were not merely party donors but applicants for positions in the EBofG?
 
Interesting:
BREAKING: New documents reveal House investigators were tracking a Ukrainian corruption scheme where US aid doubled to Ukraine in 15-16 in exchange for money to the Clinton Foundation .
Didn't read your own link did ya?

One text that uses words like "Hunch" "Rumors" "If accurate" then absolutely dick all in that 'NEW DOCUMENT about it.' The house investigators were Judy Unrulyannie, Devon Custard Prunes, and Dick Pompayo.

However, if the allegations are accurate then Clinton should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. She'll probably get a pardon from Fatty anyway.

1579363483692.png
 
According to the Court case you cited, it is limited to the purpose of determining, "whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information."

Unless you're claiming that all attendees at that talk were not merely party donors but applicants for positions in the EBofG?
where does the court case say the power is limited to anything? It doesn’t, it simply offers you an example of what the power extends to...

although the fact that you lot don’t understand how to read a court case properly should really have been obvious to the rest of us from Hector the Inspector’s continuing inability to identify any actual crimes that Donald Trump has been accused of in his impeachment proceedings. How is that coming along by the way hector? Found any yet?
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
where does the court case say the power is limited to anything? It doesn’t, it simply offers you an example of what the power extends to...

although the fact that you lot don’t understand how to read a court case properly should really have been obvious to the rest of us from Hector the Inspector’s continuing inability to identify any actual crimes that Donald Trump has been accused of in his impeachment proceedings. How is that coming along by the way hector? Found any yet?
Speaking of triggered and TDS. . .
 
You really still don’t get it do you?

the right to declassify things isn’t limited to doing it for bureaucratic and administrative reasons

it’s for whatever reasons he likes... and do you know why that is?

Its because he’s the ******* President

:queen: :salut::dance::1:
Oh no I get it.


'This is quite common under American law', isn't that the new doctrine?
 
I can't see why you get your draws in an uproar it's not like you voted for either of them.
Its about basic fairness

You lot foam at the mouth demanding his head for a crime and when its pointed out his predecessor did it 7 times you whine- so what or whataboutism and never want to acknowledge those inconvenient facts

Pretty much every POTUS has broken the law at some point in their terms, trump is hardly unique in that regard except here. Here it's the Captain Renault hypocrisy fan club


trump broke a law
Off with his head he broke a law

Obama broke 7? well Harrumph rustles the guardian, oh look a squirrel
 
What's all this, then SME leaves?


Or not quite?


Interesting CV

Andrew L. Peek is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.
 
Shut it, General.

John Hyten, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during remarks that North Korea is “building new missiles, new capabilities, new weapons as fast as anybody on the planet.” The commander of US Strategic Command, Air Force Gen.

Didn't you get the memo, the diplomat in chief has it covered.

Be a shame if professional assessment disagreed with Trump's, one imagines they would have to be fired.
 

BigT

LE
Its about basic fairness

You lot foam at the mouth demanding his head for a crime and when its pointed out his predecessor did it 7 times you whine- so what or whataboutism and never want to acknowledge those inconvenient facts

Pretty much every POTUS has broken the law at some point in their terms, trump is hardly unique in that regard except here. Here it's the Captain Renault hypocrisy fan club


trump broke a law
Off with his head he broke a law

Obama broke 7? well Harrumph rustles the guardian, oh look a squirrel
I agree on fairness but were any of the cases you cited on the direct order of the president and being used to leverage a foreign power to assist in gaining advantage over a political rival.

Trump makes over 15,000 false or misleading statements Aww shucks that's just Trump being Trump.

Obama wears a tan suit, hang the bastard
 
neither “Abuse of power” or “Obstruction of Congress” is identified as a criminal offence under US federal code.

So, I ask again, what Crime is Trump accused of?
Exactly those crimes. Like I told you, it falls under the open ended "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" clause.
You seem to have difficulty reading.
Or comprehending. Strange that.

The Founding Fathers, being not entirely stupid, even if they were a bunch of rebellious splitters, clearly modelled their infant Republic on Rome. What Rome suffered from was over mighty subjects becoming Emperors.

They deliberately built in a catch all clause to allow their distant descendants a way to discipline or depose a wannabe emperor. You could not imagine an 18th century slave owning gentlemen saying:
"I tell thee, master Benjamin Franklin. I foresee a day of villainy when some craven cur shalt use some infernal signalling device to incur the wrath of our countrymen, by his connivance and traffic with the rebellious subjects of the Tsar. Best thee do put in a law about communicating secretly with the Slavic nations, lest they fail to imprison the sons of American politicians when told".

Their wisdom failed to see a craven surrender to a personality cult by their descendants.
 
They deliberately built in a catch all clause to allow their distant descendants a way to discipline or depose a wannabe emperor.
Nope, sorry, more revisionist bollocks being spouted - fact was they simply adopted the established wording of the common law of England, that had used the phrase since at least 1386.

your argument is so flawed that it flies in the face of a fundamental principle of the common law, Nulla poena sine lege.
 
How does that stack up against Section 69 of the Army Act 1955?
 
FWIW at this stage, I don't think Trump could expect better publicity in a run up to another election-He's got it sewn up. What made me laugh is that the senate is being required to give an oath of impartiality-which would imply they're not under any circumstances impartial. They won't get a two thirds majority even the pundits are saying he'll get off and they have to determine how to run the trial:oops:. I thought that was a constitutional given. I mean this is a bit like Charlie 1 with no executioner. Ganz Merkwuerdig
 

Top