Our divided opinion on what the DOJ should and should not do...

[OldLady]

as stated earlier:

EX president having a private meeting with the person ultimately in charge of the investigation of his wife.

CURRENT president stating what he would like to see DOJ investigating

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around.

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

 

[nat4900]

Article 2, Section 3, Us Constitution "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,". he shall, meaning not optional.

If a political opponent is suspected of violating federal statutes, the president is required by the Constitution to enforce the law. We are either a nation of laws, or a nation that allows the political elite to skate depending on who they are. Allowing the political elite to skate, violates other sections of the Constitution as well, such as the equal protection provided for in the 14th Amendment.

You can feel free to pretend this is a political issue, it's not, it's a constitutional issue.

Sure, Tigger........then, you must have been ALL in favor for Nixon to keep firing AGs to stop the special prosecutor's demand for Nixon'st secret tapes.???

 

[Manonthestreet]

as stated earlier:

EX president having a private meeting with the person ultimately in charge of the investigation of his wife.

CURRENT president stating what he would like to see DOJ investigating

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around.

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

Muellers fishing expedition is extra legal and needs to be shut down..........so far his indictments have nothing to do with the facade its being conducted under

 

[nat4900]

Muellers fishing expedition is extra legal and needs to be shut down..........so far his indictments have nothing to do with the facade its being conducted under

Patience, my son....have patience.......LOL

 

[Manonthestreet]

Muellers fishing expedition is extra legal and needs to be shut down..........so far his indictments have nothing to do with the facade its being conducted under

Patience, my son....have patience.......LOL

xtra legal...thanks for confirming

 

[Auld Phart]

as stated earlier:

EX president having a private meeting with the person ultimately in charge of the investigation of his wife.

CURRENT president stating what he would like to see DOJ investigating

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around.

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

You really have to ask?

 

[OldLady]

as stated earlier:

EX president having a private meeting with the person ultimately in charge of the investigation of his wife.

CURRENT president stating what he would like to see DOJ investigating

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around.

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

You really have to ask?

Are you really feinting away from the point, here Will? That's not like you.

 

[Auld Phart]

as stated earlier:

EX president having a private meeting with the person ultimately in charge of the investigation of his wife.

CURRENT president stating what he would like to see DOJ investigating

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around.

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

You really have to ask?

Are you really feinting away from the point, here Will? That's not like you.

Seriously OL, I thought it was painfully obvious.

While there is no record of what was actually said, the odds of it being about grandchildren is slim.

possible scenario:
Bill: "Get rid of this case against Hillary, she gets elected, and you keep your job.

You don't, and you're next on the chopping block."


The case went away, but the damage was done.

 

[OKTexas]

Article 2, Section 3, Us Constitution "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,". he shall, meaning not optional.

If a political opponent is suspected of violating federal statutes, the president is required by the Constitution to enforce the law. We are either a nation of laws, or a nation that allows the political elite to skate depending on who they are. Allowing the political elite to skate, violates other sections of the Constitution as well, such as the equal protection provided for in the 14th Amendment.

You can feel free to pretend this is a political issue, it's not, it's a constitutional issue.

Sure, Tigger........then, you must have been ALL in favor for Nixon to keep firing AGs to stop the special prosecutor's demand for Nixon'st secret tapes.???

Already deflecting? I don't remember seeing anything about Nixon in the OP. And there's zero comparison to Trump calling for an investigation of possible violations of US criminal statutes and what Nixon did. But like I said, feel free to keep pretending.


.

 

[OldLady]

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around.

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

You really have to ask?

Are you really feinting away from the point, here Will? That's not like you.

Seriously OL, I thought it was painfully obvious.

While there is no record of what was actually said, the odds of it being about grandchildren is slim.

possible scenario:
Bill: "Get rid of this case against Hillary, she gets elected, and you keep your job.

You don't, and you're next on the chopping block."


The case went away, but the damage was done.

Exactly. That's a given, Will.
How is Trump asking for Comey's loyalty and firing him for not getting it any different?
How is Trump calling for investigations against his political opponent based on no evidence any different? That's the part that's puzzling me. The orange is an orange. But to me, they are BOTH oranges.

 

[Thinker101]

as stated earlier:

EX president having a private meeting with the person ultimately in charge of the investigation of his wife.

CURRENT president stating what he would like to see DOJ investigating

I'm not seeing a big difference, when it comes to throwing their weight around. What B. Clinton did was wrong. So is what Trump is doing. The DOJ is not supposed to be the President's lapdog.

That's true, good thing Holder is long gone.

 

[Auld Phart]

EX president has weight over head of DOJ?

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

This is about hoping to influence a DOJ decision. In Clinton's case, a decision on a case; in Trump's case, a decision on who should be investigated. The actors' present status is not really the point.

If B. Clinton had no influence, why did so many people go ballistic over that meeting, Will?

You really have to ask?

Are you really feinting away from the point, here Will? That's not like you.

Seriously OL, I thought it was painfully obvious.

While there is no record of what was actually said, the odds of it being about grandchildren is slim.

possible scenario:
Bill: "Get rid of this case against Hillary, she gets elected, and you keep your job.

You don't, and you're next on the chopping block."


The case went away, but the damage was done.

Exactly. That's a given, Will.
How is Trump asking for Comey's loyalty and firing him for not getting it any different?
How is Trump calling for investigations against his political opponent based on no evidence any different? That's the part that's puzzling me. The orange is an orange. But to me, they are BOTH oranges.

But to me, they are BOTH oranges.

then I feel sorry for you.

 

[SavannahMann]

Getting the DOJ to investigate crime is a little different from getting them to ignore crime.