Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Says who?
Me, government lawyers who have tried for years to delineate this line, the House Ethics committee many times in the past....law enforcement officials...
So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Says who?
Me, government lawyers who have tried for years to delineate this line, the House Ethics committee many times in the past....law enforcement officials...
How interesting. Since when do you, government lawyers, the House Ethics Committee and law enforcement officials decide the limits of constitutional presidential authority?
Whip out the paperwork.
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Says who?
Me, government lawyers who have tried for years to delineate this line, the House Ethics committee many times in the past....law enforcement officials...
How interesting. Since when do you, government lawyers, the House Ethics Committee and law enforcement officials decide the limits of constitutional presidential authority?
Whip out the paperwork.
Who said I could decide the limits, ya weirdo? All I can do is opine on it.
Excuse me, but tell me again where the President can use the DOJ to attack political opponents?
OH MY GODExcuse me, but tell me again where the President can use the DOJ to attack political opponents?
He is president, so he can do what he wants. The DOJ works for him, he does not work for the DOJ. Putin has people arrested all the time, so why shouldn't President Trump not put people in jail for telling lies about him.
President Trump has the power to pardon anybody he wants for any reason he wants because he is president. He has tweeted several times that he should also have the power put people in jail too, like Crooked Hillary and the lying deomcrats, and the coward John McCain. As he tweeted a couple of days ago, the only thing that counts is what he thinks is right, not what others think is right.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Says who?
Me, government lawyers who have tried for years to delineate this line, the House Ethics committee many times in the past....law enforcement officials...
How interesting. Since when do you, government lawyers, the House Ethics Committee and law enforcement officials decide the limits of constitutional presidential authority?
Whip out the paperwork.
Who said I could decide the limits, ya weirdo? All I can do is opine on it.
ME: Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
YOU: Wrong. It is completely unethical.
ME: Says who?
YOU: Me
The DOJ can prosecute his political opponents when they break the law.You mean theWith Brazile's roasting her own kind in Hills it makes the trumped up "investigations" into Trump look ridiculous
Time to start using your mind America instead of itty bitty feelings
So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?Of course, he is president and they lost. Why shouldn't he have them investigated?
Because that is what dictators do. That is not how things are done in America.
The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
Excuse me, but tell me again where the President can use the DOJ to attack political opponents?
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime.So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?Of course, he is president and they lost. Why shouldn't he have them investigated?
Because that is what dictators do. That is not how things are done in America.
The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
It's far more ethical than the Mewler investigation.So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Says who?
Me, government lawyers who have tried for years to delineate this line, the House Ethics committee many times in the past....law enforcement officials...
The simpler question would be: Who DOESN'T think this is unethical? Simple answer: Trump and his 30 million mommies.
There. Simpler question, covers all the bases.
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime.So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?Because that is what dictators do. That is not how things are done in America.
The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
It's far more ethical than the Mewler investigation.So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Says who?
Me, government lawyers who have tried for years to delineate this line, the House Ethics committee many times in the past....law enforcement officials...
The simpler question would be: Who DOESN'T think this is unethical? Simple answer: Trump and his 30 million mommies.
There. Simpler question, covers all the bases.
Who appointed the special prosecutor?
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Don't hold your breath, dupe.The DOJ can prosecute his political opponents when they break the law.You mean theWith Brazile's roasting her own kind in Hills it makes the trumped up "investigations" into Trump look ridiculous
Time to start using your mind America instead of itty bitty feelings
So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?Because that is what dictators do. That is not how things are done in America.
The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
Excuse me, but tell me again where the President can use the DOJ to attack political opponents?
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime.So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.
The President As Law Enforcer - United States Constitution
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Slightest evidence?
We know Russia interfered.
We know they had direction.
We know Trump lied about Russian contacts with his campaign.
We know the following people lied about their Russia contacts : Trump JR, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, Sessions, Popowhatever
We know Manafort worked fir a Ukrainian strong man with ties to Putin
We know Flynn used his position to influence a country which had him on their payroll.
The special prosecuter was enacted by Trump's DOJ.
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime.So, you think the US Constitution gives the right to use DOJ to persecute his political opponents. Just how fucking stupid are you?
Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Slightest evidence?
We know Russia interfered.
We know they had direction.
We know Trump lied about Russian contacts with his campaign.
We know the following people lied about their Russia contacts : Trump JR, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, Sessions, Popowhatever
We know Manafort worked fir a Ukrainian strong man with ties to Putin
We know Flynn used his position to influence a country which had him on their payroll.
The special prosecuter was enacted by Trump's DOJ.
Even if all that shit was true, what crime do you imagine it proves?
What's really wild is she won't go away. D's must be going nuts that she won't leave the stage.
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime.Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant.
Now, post the pertinent text in the Constitution that limits his authority to do that.
"Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Slightest evidence?
We know Russia interfered.
We know they had direction.
We know Trump lied about Russian contacts with his campaign.
We know the following people lied about their Russia contacts : Trump JR, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, Sessions, Popowhatever
We know Manafort worked fir a Ukrainian strong man with ties to Putin
We know Flynn used his position to influence a country which had him on their payroll.
The special prosecuter was enacted by Trump's DOJ.
Even if all that shit was true, what crime do you imagine it proves?
It proves what a total asshole you are for supporting a man who allowed Russia to influence our election.
As for the Crime, I'll let that to Mueller.
So, why do you support a man that lies to you all the time?
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime."Nope, he has the authority to direct the DOJ to investigate possible violations of law. That the particulars happen to be opponents is irrelevant."
Wrong. It is completely unethical.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Slightest evidence?
We know Russia interfered.
We know they had direction.
We know Trump lied about Russian contacts with his campaign.
We know the following people lied about their Russia contacts : Trump JR, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, Sessions, Popowhatever
We know Manafort worked fir a Ukrainian strong man with ties to Putin
We know Flynn used his position to influence a country which had him on their payroll.
The special prosecuter was enacted by Trump's DOJ.
Even if all that shit was true, what crime do you imagine it proves?
It proves what a total asshole you are for supporting a man who allowed Russia to influence our election.
As for the Crime, I'll let that to Mueller.
So, why do you support a man that lies to you all the time?
Hillary paid Russians to influence our election, and you voted for her, so what does that make you?
You want obsession? Every time the corrupt bitch opens her yap it's to attack PRESIDENT TRUMP!Almost exactly a year after Clinton lost the election and the winners are STILL obsessed with the loser
In most elections....you don't even remember the loser by now.
Hardly. It's far more ethical than appointing a special prosecuter who's sole job is to prosecute one man, especially when no one has produced the slightest evidence of a crime.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Slightest evidence?
We know Russia interfered.
We know they had direction.
We know Trump lied about Russian contacts with his campaign.
We know the following people lied about their Russia contacts : Trump JR, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, Sessions, Popowhatever
We know Manafort worked fir a Ukrainian strong man with ties to Putin
We know Flynn used his position to influence a country which had him on their payroll.
The special prosecuter was enacted by Trump's DOJ.
Even if all that shit was true, what crime do you imagine it proves?
It proves what a total asshole you are for supporting a man who allowed Russia to influence our election.
As for the Crime, I'll let that to Mueller.
So, why do you support a man that lies to you all the time?
Hillary paid Russians to influence our election, and you voted for her, so what does that make you?
Is there nothing you assholes don't lie about?
Hillary's campaign hired an opposition research firm. They sent people to Russia to investigste your orange buddy's business & actions there. That is NOT asking the Russian government for help.
The more & more you have to lie to protecty Captain Bone Spur, the dumber you look.
