Who would be against this law being passed???

[BluesLegend]

Your original question is born of partisan stupidity.

Mr. fuckhead....WHERE did I state that the law should be only partisan???

Answer the damn question.....Yes or No?

(or go hide under your Blue Bed.....LOL)

Don't get mad at me, you posted the stupid question.

 

[jknowgood]

No, now Trump is president all a sudden your worried.

Can't answer the question, Mr. fuckhead......Move on then.....LOL

You know why Hillary didn't go down? Because if she goes, most of them will go. I'd be willing to let Trump go, if he broke the law. For all of the corrupt politicians to go down. Would you sacrifice Hillary and Obama to get Trump? Cause if Trump goes they all do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Considering the Democrat/media symbiote and the sheer adolescent rage and nonsensical fiction that it has unleashed against opposition presidents both current and in the past, no, I would not.

LOL


Symbiote

The Klyntar are a fictional species of organic, amorphous, multicellular, extraterrestrial symbiotes appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The Klyntar bond with their hosts, creating a symbiotic bond through which a single entity is created.

symbiote no 1....

Another who thinks comics are reality. Is this why Democrats make such poor choices?

are you another who thinks only lefties read or have read comics?...

I have quite a few myself as investments, but I never took them as more than illustrated fantasies.

like most grownups do....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

LOL


Symbiote

The Klyntar are a fictional species of organic, amorphous, multicellular, extraterrestrial symbiotes appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The Klyntar bond with their hosts, creating a symbiotic bond through which a single entity is created.

symbiote no 1....

Another who thinks comics are reality. Is this why Democrats make such poor choices?

are you another who thinks only lefties read or have read comics?...

I have quite a few myself as investments, but I never took them as more than illustrated fantasies.

like most grownups do....

Nat not included, apparently.

 

[sartre play]

Would need to read the law before giving opinion, our laws are not followed with equity now, got the money, best lawyer or political connection your odds of a win become maximized.

 

[Avatar4321]

So where is the law? Until you have the proposed statute in writing, how can any of us be expected to evaluate it to determine whether it’s good .org bad?

 

[OKTexas]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Actually the Constitution is pretty clear if you have the intelligence to read it. It plainly says prosecution can proceed after removal.

.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

When you say the same thing about D presidents like Clinton and Obama you will face a lot less opposition but your post as is is simply the comment of a partisan hack.

And you're being a partisan hack by deflecting to Obama and Clinton, hack.
.
.
.

 

[pismoe]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?
After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

-------------------------------------- President is too important to have lawyers disrupting him and causing turmoil during the TRUMP Presidency . I want the Presidents big concern to be the good of the USA . YOU , You just want to cause turmoil and disruption for President Trump due to your HATE for him Nat !!

 

[WaitingFor2020]

nat a partisan hack?......what gave you that idea?..

Instead of trolling for attention....Address the fucking question posed or go play with yourself someplace else.

You pose an honest question and these pantywaists post deflective drivel.
They are as cowardly as their Dear Leader.
.
.
.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Actually the Constitution is pretty clear if you have the intelligence to read it. It plainly says prosecution can proceed after removal.

.

Removal by what means? You're not being very clear.
.
.
.

 

[Polishprince]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Suppose a President is arrested and is sent to jail to await trial on charges. How is he going to rule over us from a jail cell?

The Constitution only allows ONE method to remove someone, by impeachment, so he would still be our President and would still be ruling over we, his people, even if he was sitting in prison cell playing poker for cigarettes

 

[pismoe]

NAT just wants to mess with President Trump is all it is in my opinion PolishP

 

[H B Lowrie]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Can't we ask the US Supreme Kangaroo Court? Isn’t that why Bart O'Kavanaugh is there?

 

[OKTexas]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Actually the Constitution is pretty clear if you have the intelligence to read it. It plainly says prosecution can proceed after removal.

.

Removal by what means? You're not being very clear.
.
.
.

Sorry, I didn't think I was dealing with constitutional neophytes, the word is "impeachment". That's where the Constitution speaks about removal of the president for crimes. Although I guess the same would apply if the 25th amendment was invoked, I don't see that happening at this point.

.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Were you as firmly behind this idea, when it was possible the Clintons might leave the WH in orange jumpsuits?

100%!

 

[OKTexas]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Suppose a President is arrested and is sent to jail to await trial on charges. How is he going to rule over us from a jail cell?

The Constitution only allows ONE method to remove someone, by impeachment, so he would still be our President and would still be ruling over we, his people, even if he was sitting in prison cell playing poker for cigarettes

I don't know, although the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" comes to mind. LMAO And I seriously doubt a sitting president would be denied bail.

.

 

[Polishprince]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Suppose a President is arrested and is sent to jail to await trial on charges. How is he going to rule over us from a jail cell?

The Constitution only allows ONE method to remove someone, by impeachment, so he would still be our President and would still be ruling over we, his people, even if he was sitting in prison cell playing poker for cigarettes

I don't know, although the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" comes to mind. LMAO And I seriously doubt a sitting president would be denied bail.

.

If the defendant was Trump and the ruling judge was an Obama or Clinton appointee, I would doubt that they would give him any bail at all.

 

[OKTexas]

Mindful that the Constitution is not clear on the issue, and that we only have a DOJ "opinion" on the directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted, should an actual, CLEAR and definitive law be enacted that states that NO ONE......not even a president....is above the law and can certainly be indicted in a court of jurisdiction and NOT just the political recourse of impeachment?

After all, the breaking of laws is NOT a political issue but strictly a legal process that requires evidence, unquestionable proof, witnesses, indictments, trials and punishment.

NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE !!!

Suppose a President is arrested and is sent to jail to await trial on charges. How is he going to rule over us from a jail cell?

The Constitution only allows ONE method to remove someone, by impeachment, so he would still be our President and would still be ruling over we, his people, even if he was sitting in prison cell playing poker for cigarettes

I don't know, although the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" comes to mind. LMAO And I seriously doubt a sitting president would be denied bail.

.

If the defendant was Trump and the ruling judge was an Obama or Clinton appointee, I would doubt that they would give him any bail at all.

Wow, such a fantasy world you live in.

.

 

[Harry Dresden]

symbiote no 1....

Another who thinks comics are reality. Is this why Democrats make such poor choices?

are you another who thinks only lefties read or have read comics?...

I have quite a few myself as investments, but I never took them as more than illustrated fantasies.

like most grownups do....

Nat not included, apparently.

nats a dipshit....