White House Won't Fire Mueller

[bripat9643]

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

 

[AntonToo]

Stop kazzing, you’re not quoting the 4th Amendment. You’re stating what you wish it said; not what it actually says.

That's exactly what the SC does.

LOL

It’s their jobto interpret the Constitution when a case on it arises. That doesn’t help Kaz’s dementia.

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

Hey moron time to wake up and smell the reality - SC has the final word on constitutionality.

 

[AntonToo]

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You don't know law, you don't know enforcement you are just two bit politicos spreading your half-backed nonsense on the internets.

Think you do know something? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client

 

[bripat9643]

That's exactly what the SC does.

LOL

It’s their jobto interpret the Constitution when a case on it arises. That doesn’t help Kaz’s dementia.

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

Hey moron time to wake up and smell the reality - SC has the final word on constitutionality.

No one is arguing otherwise, moron. At least, that's the de facto situation. Whether it's de jure is another matter.

 

[Faun]

That's exactly what the SC does.

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

 

[bripat9643]

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

 

[Faun]

Stop kazzing, you’re not quoting the 4th Amendment. You’re stating what you wish it said; not what it actually says.

That's exactly what the SC does.

LOL

It’s their jobto interpret the Constitution when a case on it arises. That doesn’t help Kaz’s dementia.

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

LOLOL

Translation: the USMB’s fucking moron knows his bullshit won’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

[bripat9643]

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Horseshit, you fucking dumbass:

Susan Rice explains why she unmasked Trump officials​

Rice met with the House intelligence committee last week. Multiple sources told CNN Wednesday that Rice testified she unmasked the names of multiple members of the Trump campaign who were picked up on intelligence intercepts of foreign sources.​

 

[bripat9643]

That's exactly what the SC does.

LOL

It’s their jobto interpret the Constitution when a case on it arises. That doesn’t help Kaz’s dementia.

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

LOLOL

Translation: the USMB’s fucking moron knows his bullshit won’t stand up to scrutiny.

Obviously, name-calling is all the dumbass has got.

 

[AntonToo]

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

 

[Faun]

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Horseshit, you fucking dumbass:

Susan Rice explains why she unmasked Trump officials​

Rice met with the House intelligence committee last week. Multiple sources told CNN Wednesday that Rice testified she unmasked the names of multiple members of the Trump campaign who were picked up on intelligence intercepts of foreign sources.​

He wasn’t a campaign member at that time, ya fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Horseshit, you fucking dumbass:

Susan Rice explains why she unmasked Trump officials​

Rice met with the House intelligence committee last week. Multiple sources told CNN Wednesday that Rice testified she unmasked the names of multiple members of the Trump campaign who were picked up on intelligence intercepts of foreign sources.​

He wasn’t a campaign member at that time, ya fucking moron.

Who wasn't a campaign member, dumbfuck? Did Susan Rice mention the names of who she unmasked? She admitted she unmasked Trump campaign members - something you just claimed never happened.

 

[Faun]

LOL

It’s their jobto interpret the Constitution when a case on it arises. That doesn’t help Kaz’s dementia.

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

LOLOL

Translation: the USMB’s fucking moron knows his bullshit won’t stand up to scrutiny.

Obviously, name-calling is all the dumbass has got.

Fucking moron, I call you a fucking moron because you call yourself a fucking moron; with which I happen to agree.

You have to be a fucking moron to believe the photo is showing the Cuban coast.

Well, what do you know, that picture is actually in Cuba.

[/QUOTE]

As far as Mueller, trump’s presidency is effectively finished if he fires him.

As far as the Judiciary, the Constitution gives it Judicial powers over any legal case arising under the Constitution.

Now ya know.

Write it down.

Memorize it.

Spread the word.

 

[Faun]

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Horseshit, you fucking dumbass:

Susan Rice explains why she unmasked Trump officials​

Rice met with the House intelligence committee last week. Multiple sources told CNN Wednesday that Rice testified she unmasked the names of multiple members of the Trump campaign who were picked up on intelligence intercepts of foreign sources.​

He wasn’t a campaign member at that time, ya fucking moron.

Who wasn't a campaign member, dumbfuck? Did Susan Rice mention the names of who she unmasked? She admitted she unmasked Trump campaign members - something you just claimed never happened.

Holyfuckingshit!

Fucking moron....

The campaign was over when the unmasking occurred. How is a campaign member spied on when there is no campaign, to a fucking moron?

 

[Syriusly]

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Horseshit, you fucking dumbass:

Susan Rice explains why she unmasked Trump officials​

Rice met with the House intelligence committee last week. Multiple sources told CNN Wednesday that Rice testified she unmasked the names of multiple members of the Trump campaign who were picked up on intelligence intercepts of foreign sources.​

He wasn’t a campaign member at that time, ya fucking moron.

The Trumpsters never let the facts get in the way of their firmly held conspiracy theories.

 

[Syriusly]

That's exactly what the SC does.

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.

The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.

Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'

 

[bripat9643]

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

Any law that allows the govenment to spy on Americans is unconstitutional, you Stalinist douchebag.

 

[Syriusly]

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.

They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.

 

[bripat9643]

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.

The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.

Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'

I know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.