Constitutional Crisis. IMPEACH TWITLER!

What do you call 59 cruise missles, fool? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

excellent roman candles!

bahhaaa. False god? coverup of a coverup of a coverup? ahaaa pigman we get you don't like Trump but if you really despise his presidency so much to hang your hat on "pee tapes" Vlad the Russkie supposedly has then you occupy a very small little corner all your own in the Libatd crazy corn field. but you'll have plenty of corn to eat , eh?

bahhaa

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

He has plenty of corn to EAT from picking dingleberries ! And with corn harvest season soon upon us, he should be even happier !

LAURENCE TRIBE IS FULL OF SHIT!

But don't take it from me... it's the opinion of Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz... you know, one of those Constitutional scholars the OP said we should expect to hear more from:


Alan Dershowitz: Trump did not obstruct justice in firing James Comey

by Alan Dershowitz, contributor | May 11, 2017, 6:17 PM


A dangerous argument is now being put forward by some Democratic ideologues: namely that President Trump should be indicted for the crime of obstructing justice because he fired FBI Director James Comey. Whatever one may think of the president's decision to fire Comey as a matter of policy, there is no legitimate basis for concluding that the president engaged in a crime by exercising his statutory and constitutional authority to fire director Comey. As Comey himself wrote in his letter to the FBI, no one should doubt the authority of the president to fire the director for any reason or no reason.

It should not be a crime for a public official, whether the president or anyone else, to exercise his or her statutory and constitutional authority to hire or fire another public official. For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind.

Even assuming that Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone should never constitute a crime. There should have to be an unlawful act. And exercising constitutional and statutory power should not constitute the actus reus of a crime. Otherwise the crime would place the defendant's thoughts on trial, rather than his actions.

Civil libertarians, and all who care about due process and justice, should be concerned about the broad scope of the statute that criminalizes "obstruction of justice." Some courts have wrongly interpreted this accordion-like law so broadly as to encompass a mixture of lawful and unlawful acts. It is dangerous and wrong to criminalize lawful behavior because it may have been motivated by evil thoughts. People who care about the rule of law, regardless of how they feel about Trump, should not be advocating a broadening of obstruction of justice to include the lawful presidential act of firing the FBI director. Such an open-ended precedent could be used in the future to curtail the liberties of all Americans.

So let's put this nonsense behind us and not criminalize policy differences, as extremists in both parties have tried to do. Republican and Democratic partisans often resort to the criminal law as a way of demonizing their political enemies. "Lock her up," was the cry of Republican partisans against Hillary Clinton regarding her misuse of her email server. Now "obstruction of justice" is the "lock him up" cry of partisan Democrats who disagree with Trump's decision to fire Comey.

I opposed the criminalization of policy differences when Texas Governor Rick Perry, Congressman Tom Delay and Senator Bob Menendez were indicted, and I strongly oppose the investigation now being conducted against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The criminal law should be used as the last resort against elected officials, not as the opening salvo in a political knife-fight. There is no place in a democracy for elastic statutes that can be stretched to fit lawful conduct with which political opponents disagree. If they are allowed to be stretched today to cover your political enemies, they could be stretched tomorrow to go after your political friends.

The debate over the propriety of the president's actions, about which I have opined repeatedly, should continue but let's take the allegations of criminal obstruction of justice out of this important debate. There is more than enough fodder for a debate over the merits and demerits of the president's actions without muddying the waters with politically-motivated charges of criminality.

Partisanship seems to have no limits these days. Both parties are equally at fault, as are extremists among the public and within the media. It is getting harder and harder to have a nuanced debate about complex political issues. Everything is either evil or good. Nothing has elements of both. Actions either deserve criminal indictment or the Nobel Prize.

Nobody benefits from this kind of ideological shouting match. So let's agree to disagree about important issues, but let's not distort the debate with extremist slogans like "lock her up" or "obstruction of justice." We are better than that.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law" and "Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter."


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al...rticle/2622875

LAURENCE TRIBE IS FULL OF SHIT!


Nobody benefits from this kind of ideological shouting match. So let's agree to disagree about important issues, but let's not distort the debate with extremist slogans like "lock her up" or "obstruction of justice." We are better than that.
Originally Posted by lustylad

Maybe you should read the entire article...it was just as much an indictment on the "lock her up crowd" as the crowd you are pointing a finger at.

You partisan hack.

excellent roman candles! Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

And what's happened in Syria since? NADA.

It was another Twitler fuckup.

But it sure made for excellent after dinner talk with the Chinese president.

It's hard to make fools out of idiots.

No wonder this all seems normal to you!

And what's happened in Syria since? NADA.

It was another Twitler fuckup.

But it sure made for excellent after dinner talk with the Chinese president.

It's hard to make fools out of idiots.

No wonder this all seems normal to you! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What are you talking about. We have no problem making a fool out of you. You're the poster child for idiocy.

Jim

Maybe you should read the entire article...it was just as much an indictment on the "lock her up crowd" as the crowd you are pointing a finger at.

You partisan hack. Originally Posted by WTF

I read the entire article, fagboy. It completely refutes Laurence Tribe and the OP. And it's written by a well-known Harvard Constitutional Law Professor. Precisely the kind of Constitutional scholar that assup said to "expect more... commentaries from".

I never said I wanted to "lock her up" - until YOU stupidly tried to equate non-prosecution with absence of wrongdoing. If you want to continue spouting nonsense like that, I will gladly champion an effort by Jeff Sessions' DOJ to lock hildebeest up - just to prove you wrong.

So YOU'RE the hack who is incapable of having a nuanced debate. You validate the author's point that "partisanship seems to have no limits these days."

If this was a game the democrats would have been penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. All along... I thought they were the good guys. Now I see their true colors.

Maybe you should read the entire article...it was just as much an indictment on the "lock her up crowd" as the crowd you are pointing a finger at.

You partisan hack. Originally Posted by WTF

Your cop car shitting days are over, WTFer...

TWITLER DONE STEPPED IN IT AGAIN! This time, he's possibly committed treason.

McMaster just issued a denial. No questions allowed.

This will mark the beginning of the end.

Shit Eater, you are over flowing...

Hillary didn't just leak classified information to the Russians from inside the Oval Office.

Quit deflecting, asshole.

This is the beginning of end for the Turd Reich.

I can't wait.

TWITLER DONE STEPPED IN IT AGAIN! This time, he's possibly committed treason.

McMaster just issued a denial. No questions allowed.

This will mark the beginning of the end. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you mean this? yet another nothing burger ..

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/u...isis.html?_r=0

Trump Revealed Highly Classified Intelligence to Russia, in Break With Ally, Officials Say



you want the Cliff's notes?


Mr. Trump’s disclosure does not appear to have been illegal — the president has the power to declassify almost anything. But sharing the information without the express permission of the ally who provided it was a major breach of espionage etiquette, and could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship.


A Middle Eastern ally that closely guards its own secrets provided the information, which was considered so sensitive that American officials did not share it widely within the United States government or pass it on to other allies.



ok let's name the 900 pound elephant .. Israel



the same Israel that as an "Ally" of the US, turned many CIA, FBI and Military to spy for them at our expense? for decades. don't we still have a few traitors in our prisons that the Hebrew Tribe keeps wanting us to release? bahahaaaa



So what?? teach them Israelite's a lesson, won't it?



who needs who more, Assup? The US or Israel? the US is a giant nation, 3rd largest, with by far the largest economy. Israel is barely larger than fucking New Jersey. Them Israelis need us way more than we need them.

TWITLER DONE STEPPED IN IT AGAIN! This time, he's possibly committed treason.

McMaster just issued a denial. No questions allowed.

This will mark the beginning of the end. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Let's say you are right about Trump.

It doesn't matter, cause you will still be gay!!