Michael Avenatti furious over ‘CREEPY P___ LAWYER’ chyron on Fox News

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

You turds didn't seem too concerned about that when Slick Willy was getting his dick serviced in the Oval Office.

The hypocrisy of Trump haters is impossible to exaggerate.

I don't care now either what he does in his private life.

The OP is another example of how Fox is a disgrace lying and brainwashing the chumps...

Replace "FOX" with "CNN". Biased networks. 100% agreed.

 

[francoHFW]

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a fuck about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a fuck about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

 

[Lewdog]

That's your opinion and guess what it is worth? NOTHING because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide... and why? Because it doesn't say it in the Constitution!

Feel free to read this from Georgetown Law where several professors argue for and against it.

"On the other extreme is the view of Professor Eric Freedman: sitting Presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. Analyzing the constitutional text, the Framers' debates, historical precedent with respect to other federal officials, as well as policy arguments, Professor Freedman finds no support for such immunity; moreover, he sees no need to infer it. While he does not explicitly discuss the question of immunity for civil actions, I suspect his analysis would also lead him to conclude that there shall not be any immunity from civil actions."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Tempt fate and bet your life. Do that and we'll agree to disagree. I am 100% positive that cannot happen. Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, btw. The Preeminent constitutional attorney in the country and a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

I am 100% positive. Not sure what you don't understand.

He is the most powerful man in the world. Until you take that power away you cannot indict him. He is your boss. He controls the Judicial Branch. How do you not comprehend that?

Who gives a fuck about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

Just because someone is the head of a branch of the fucking U.S. government, they ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW. When deciding this, not only would the Supreme Court look at the Constitution, but they would also look at what the Framers wrote in the Federalist Papers and other documents.




"Former acting United States Solicitor Walter Dellinger believes that a sitting president of the United States can be indicted.

"There is nothing in the constitutional text or judicial precedent that provides for a categorical bar to the indictment of a sitting president," Dellinger wrote in an op-ed published in The New York Times Monday, adding, "No one should be above the law.""

A sitting president can be indicted, says former acting solicitor general

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we care who Presidents sleep with?

Because if the President cheated on his wife, he can be blackmailed for it, especially if he keeps denying it like he has. First you don't want someone representing your country that lacks morals, but you also don't want a president that is vulnerable.

You turds didn't seem too concerned about that when Slick Willy was getting his dick serviced in the Oval Office.

The hypocrisy of Trump haters is impossible to exaggerate.

I don't care now either what he does in his private life.

The OP is another example of how Fox is a disgrace lying and brainwashing the chumps... And it's the best of right-wing media LOL....

If you don't care, then why are you constantly bleating about it?

 

[Lewdog]

Who gives a fuck about Dershowitz? Did Trump appoint him to the Supreme Court without the rest of the country knowing it?

I can post links to hundreds and hundreds of different law professors that go both ways on the issue. Only way we'd know for sure is if the Supreme Court actually heard it. Why can't you understand that?

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LMAO because he is the preeminent constitutional attorney in the country? I don't play in hypothetical situations. If you're too dumb to know that the judicial tree ultimately reports to the POTUS then this discussion is not worth having. My 14 year old is smarter than you. You're dumb.

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

 

[Lewdog]

Says who? Fox News? Good grief. You know that is a fallacy right? Appeal to authority?

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Fox News? What? You don't know that the POTUS is the ultimate boss of the Judicial Branch? Are you F*CKING kidding me? LMAO. You're so dumb. OMG.

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

 

[Lewdog]

B******. Congress impeaches judges.

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The POTUS can fire the AG and anyone below him. What judges?

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

No. I said he could fire them. Find one post where I said "He could fire them for trying to indict him".

If you cannot then you agree to never post on these boards again. Deal?

You are a liar and are making stuff up now. Loser.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ok, this was dirty and sneaky. I don't agree with it, but when I first saw this clip I had to laugh my behind off. "I agreed I wasn't going to call him the derogatory name I have called him" and then underneath the image of this guy time and time again is the caption.

It's not cool to do this, but the lawyer is a sleazy guy there is no question, and I had to laugh. He has a right to be upset and he had a right to call out Tucker to his face. Well...call me a bad guy for laughing, but I did. Maybe you will too

Michael Avenatti furious over ‘CREEPY PORN LAWYER’ chyron on Fox News

In an intense TV interview Thursday night, Fox News host and commentator Tucker Carlson promised Stormy Daniels’s attorney Michael Avenatti that he would not use his inflammatory nickname for the lawyer on his show — then immediately went to a chyron that read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Carlson introduced Avenatti on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” explaining that in the past, Avenatti has “demanded that we stop referring to him by a certain, unflattering nickname.”

“We haven’t agreed to that demand, but tonight, as a gesture of goodwill, we will not use that nickname,” Carlson vowed. “Because we’re always grateful when guests are brave enough to show up in person, including in this case.”

He then turned to the lawyer.

“We could sit here and hurl insults at each other for the segment. Already done that,” Carlson told Avenatti. “I’ve certainly insulted you. You’ve insulted me. But you seem smart, so let me take you seriously as somebody who wants to be involved in the public conversation.

At the time, the caption on the screen: “STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER IS HERE TONIGHT.”

But once Carlson began questioning Avenatti about his presidential aspirations, it changed to include the nickname.

First, it read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Then: “DOES AMERICA WANT CREEPY PORN LAWYER AS PRES?”

Then: “STORMY’S LAWYER AS CREEPY PORN PRESIDENT?”

Then: “TUCKER TAKES ON CREEPY PORN LAWYER.”

Then just: “CPL FINALLY AGREES TO INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER.”

He may represent a porn Star
But our President fucked her

Does that make him Creepy Porn President?

What does it make our Porn Star First Lady?

Wow.

She'd even give Michael Obama a woody

 

[Lewdog]

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

No. I said he could fire them. Find one post where I said "He could fire them for trying to indict him".

If you cannot then you agree to never post on these boards again. Deal?

You are a liar and are making stuff up now. Loser.

You literally said to someone in this thread that if the AG or people under him tried to arrest the President, he could just fire them.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Referring to her as any sort of Star is too much of a compliment. No woman with anything going for her, wants to degrade herself like that. I never saw anything she did, until my interest was peaked recently. She has been a receptacle for everything and everyone. If Don did bang her without protection, it’s risky but who cares. I saw tons of other dudes doing the same thing, in groups. I don’t even know how she would make money off of this. This guy is a creep, and he is making money off of her by charging her as well as getting paid for being on TV. I can’t see why Don even had to answer questions about what he did. I’m sure he could afford to pay 130k no problem. She’s probably never seen that type of money. Blackmailing him is the worst thing yet. At least he hasn’t done anything while in office, or in his office like Bill. How many years ago did this happen?This guy wants to point out and exaggerate every flaw, to open the door to other things to exaggerate about. Tucker can handle himself, and Trump can also. JFK didn’t catch any [emoji90] for his indiscretions. He walked on water in the eyes of most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lewdog]

And if he does, that's obstruction of justice...

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

No. I said he could fire them. Find one post where I said "He could fire them for trying to indict him".

If you cannot then you agree to never post on these boards again. Deal?

You are a liar and are making stuff up now. Loser.

I'm a liar?

rightwinger It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

You in response: He is their BOSS!! They cannot. He would fire them. I take it back. You are an idiot. Who do you think the Justice Dept. ultimately reports to?

It's like post #74... Jesus you don't even remember what you are posting and you want us to think you can interpret the Constitution?

 

[Lewdog]

Yawn? You cannot charge a POTUS with a crime. He must be impeached first. Which won't happen. The rest of your post is mindless babble of an uneducated fool. Please get an education. Get your head out of your ass and then we can confabulate. If Trump shoots Pence in the head, he would need to be impeached before being arrested. We already all agree he will not be impeached. How can he leave in handcuffs? Man our country has some seriously stupid people. You are case in point.

Ken Starr said this week he thinks a President can be indicted...

Kenny did a great job with WJC. You may only impeach a POTUS. It was written into the constitution on purpose as such so that we could not charge our Commander in Chief with a crime while he was the CiC. F*CK we have so many uneducated people in this country. Read a damn book.

It's not decided that a President can't be indicted... The President isn't ABOVE the law.

It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

He is their BOSS!! They cannot. He would fire them. I take it back. You are an idiot. Who do you think the Justice Dept. ultimately reports to?

Hello McFly... Hello??? Here is there you said if he was being arrested he would fire them.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Ok, this was dirty and sneaky. I don't agree with it, but when I first saw this clip I had to laugh my behind off. "I agreed I wasn't going to call him the derogatory name I have called him" and then underneath the image of this guy time and time again is the caption.

It's not cool to do this, but the lawyer is a sleazy guy there is no question, and I had to laugh. He has a right to be upset and he had a right to call out Tucker to his face. Well...call me a bad guy for laughing, but I did. Maybe you will too

Michael Avenatti furious over ‘CREEPY PORN LAWYER’ chyron on Fox News

In an intense TV interview Thursday night, Fox News host and commentator Tucker Carlson promised Stormy Daniels’s attorney Michael Avenatti that he would not use his inflammatory nickname for the lawyer on his show — then immediately went to a chyron that read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Carlson introduced Avenatti on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” explaining that in the past, Avenatti has “demanded that we stop referring to him by a certain, unflattering nickname.”

“We haven’t agreed to that demand, but tonight, as a gesture of goodwill, we will not use that nickname,” Carlson vowed. “Because we’re always grateful when guests are brave enough to show up in person, including in this case.”

He then turned to the lawyer.

“We could sit here and hurl insults at each other for the segment. Already done that,” Carlson told Avenatti. “I’ve certainly insulted you. You’ve insulted me. But you seem smart, so let me take you seriously as somebody who wants to be involved in the public conversation.

At the time, the caption on the screen: “STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER IS HERE TONIGHT.”

But once Carlson began questioning Avenatti about his presidential aspirations, it changed to include the nickname.

First, it read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”

Then: “DOES AMERICA WANT CREEPY PORN LAWYER AS PRES?”

Then: “STORMY’S LAWYER AS CREEPY PORN PRESIDENT?”

Then: “TUCKER TAKES ON CREEPY PORN LAWYER.”

Then just: “CPL FINALLY AGREES TO INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER.”

He may represent a porn Star
But our President fucked her

Does that make him Creepy Porn President?

What does it make our Porn Star First Lady?

you know there's nothing pornographic about this picture right? You do recognize that?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Says who? It is his right to fire people. He can fire Sessions tomorrow and it would NOT be obstruction of justice. You know this right? LOL.

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

No. I said he could fire them. Find one post where I said "He could fire them for trying to indict him".

If you cannot then you agree to never post on these boards again. Deal?

You are a liar and are making stuff up now. Loser.

I'm a liar?

rightwinger It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

You in response: He is their BOSS!! They cannot. He would fire them. I take it back. You are an idiot. Who do you think the Justice Dept. ultimately reports to?

It's like post #74... Jesus you don't even remember what you are posting and you want us to think you can interpret the Constitution?

They cannot arrest their boss. I never said he would fire them for indicting him. He would need to be impeached first. F&CK you are stupid and childish with your dumbass emojis. This is a nonpartisan argument. Same reason Clinton was not arrested for perjury and sexual assault of an intern. Again you are stupid.

 

[Lewdog]

You don't get it do you? Yes he can fire them... but if he fires them with no just cause other than he is pissed because they are investigating him and trying to get him indicted or impeached, that's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

No. I said he could fire them. Find one post where I said "He could fire them for trying to indict him".

If you cannot then you agree to never post on these boards again. Deal?

You are a liar and are making stuff up now. Loser.

I'm a liar?

rightwinger It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

You in response: He is their BOSS!! They cannot. He would fire them. I take it back. You are an idiot. Who do you think the Justice Dept. ultimately reports to?

It's like post #74... Jesus you don't even remember what you are posting and you want us to think you can interpret the Constitution?

They cannot arrest their boss. I never said he would fire them for indicting him. He would need to be impeached first. F&CK you are stupid and childish with your dumbass emojis. This is a nonpartisan argument. Same reason Clinton was not arrested for perjury and sexual assault of an intern. Again you are stupid.

You sure as hell did! Liar!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Define Just Cause?

Trump: Clinton had 33k illegal emails, bleached her server and destroyed 12 blackberries. You didn't investigate her to my satisfaction. You're fired.

Just cause? Try to argue otherwise. Very subjective. He fired Tillerson. What was the just cause there?

You know exactly what "just cause" is. Hell, you are sitting here saying he would fire them for trying to indict him... That's not "just cause."

No. I said he could fire them. Find one post where I said "He could fire them for trying to indict him".

If you cannot then you agree to never post on these boards again. Deal?

You are a liar and are making stuff up now. Loser.

I'm a liar?

rightwinger It is a myth
His own Justice Department would arrest him

You in response: He is their BOSS!! They cannot. He would fire them. I take it back. You are an idiot. Who do you think the Justice Dept. ultimately reports to?

It's like post #74... Jesus you don't even remember what you are posting and you want us to think you can interpret the Constitution?

They cannot arrest their boss. I never said he would fire them for indicting him. He would need to be impeached first. F&CK you are stupid and childish with your dumbass emojis. This is a nonpartisan argument. Same reason Clinton was not arrested for perjury and sexual assault of an intern. Again you are stupid.

You sure as hell did! Liar!

Bullshit. Find the quote.