Merged Trump Fires Comey....

ChristianProgressive said:
They may not have a choice, SCOTUS has upheld that in the event of fraud, the "losing" candidate gets the office (Stinson decision 1995-96 in PA).

As for your other question, set process or not the decisions and actions of an illegitimate office holder cannot be legitimate and are therefore null and void.

On other topics, evidence has surfaced that Trump does in fact tape his office, or at least has people listening in.

https://t.co/t5RgFzyfA4
Click to expand...

That involved actual ballot fraud, right? Generally we defer to the voter and don't consider why they voted for person X and if that reason was based on truth.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
They may not have a choice, SCOTUS has upheld that in the event of fraud, the "losing" candidate gets the office (Stinson decision 1995-96 in PA).
Click to expand...
Sorry, Marks v Stinson is not applicable as that had to do with illegal absentee ballots. Not unfair influence on the voters. The court cannot reasonably tell what was in the minds of the voters. The ballots were legally cast in the Presidential election.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
On what grounds?
Click to expand...

That's a tricky one. Essentially his appointment would have been under fraudulent pretenses.

If this country had any brains, the election results would be tossed out, but you can bet the GOP would never let that happen even though it should. They would argue that one cannot weigh the effect Russian cheating and Comey interfering had on the election. We can't weigh the effect of GOP voter suppression.

We can weigh the effect of fraudulent voting. It would be minimal. And unfortunately no one has really investigated if any voting machines were rigged. It would seem no one wants to know so they just assert there is no evidence. But there was evidence in 2004. Hackers proved how easy it could be done with Diebold machines.


But I digress.
 
acbytesla said:
Nope. And it doesn't matter what I think. You're the one that used the label. To me it's highly subjective, depends on the issue and changes over time. Being chummy with the Russians and China would have been one time considered 'extreme left'. I hold positions on some issues that have liberal friends tell me that maybe I'd be more comfortable being a Republican. I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

BS
Is George Will a 'lefty'? I agree very little with Will, but our attitudes about Trump, process and the rule of law are very similar. Positions you dismiss out of hand as meaningless leftist nonsense. So again, what do you considered to be extremely left?
Click to expand...
I know you're liberal and you think I know that because of what you think of Trump? If that's true you really haven't been paying attention.
 
fuelair said:
In all fairness, that is an unwarranted slur on Bozo the Clown!!!!
Click to expand...

I am such a funny clown
I like to travel round and round
The Circus is my home
I always seem to roam

In a rocket ship I soar
I explore the ocean floor
But you must know, I'll never go
Unless you come along!

Bozo, Bozo, always laughs, never frowns
Bozo, Bozo, Bozo the clown!
 
W.D.Clinger said:
It may not be fair to expect logger to know more American history than an American President who, soon after learning Abraham Lincoln was a Republican (who knew?), said Andrew Jackson "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.”"

Many fine, upstanding Americans have no use for history. Here's another example, from Donald Westlake's What's the Worst That Could Happen?, a Dortmunder novel:
Click to expand...

And we can't expect wdclinger to know the full transcript of Trumps remarks. But that of course is standard operating procedure here, questioning a persons intelligence over ideology. Its another tactic of the left. one would think such smart people would figure out how to win. LOL
 
Well this is an interesting development. I've just been skimming, but I haven't seen reference to this.

According to an anonymous source that is allegedly a close associate of Mr. Comey, Comey refused the invitation to testify to a closed session of a Congressional committee, but said he would testify to a public session.

I do so hope this report is true.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well this is an interesting development. I've just been skimming, but I haven't seen reference to this.

According to an anonymous source that is allegedly a close associate of Mr. Comey, Comey refused the invitation to testify to a closed session of a Congressional committee, but said he would testify to a public session.

I do so hope this report is true.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a shot across the bow.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well this is an interesting development. I've just been skimming, but I haven't seen reference to this.

According to an anonymous source that is allegedly a close associate of Mr. Comey, Comey refused the invitation to testify to a closed session of a Congressional committee, but said he would testify to a public session.

I do so hope this report is true.
Click to expand...

It's been spread quite a bit, not least because such was apparently stated shortly after Trump's threat. Whether Congress would accept such a condition and let us hear what he has to say is a separate matter and may well be avoided by just going to the next person in line. We'll see.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well this is an interesting development. I've just been skimming, but I haven't seen reference to this.

According to an anonymous source that is allegedly a close associate of Mr. Comey, Comey refused the invitation to testify to a closed session of a Congressional committee, but said he would testify to a public session.

I do so hope this report is true.
Click to expand...

That's what's being reported. It makes sense; it's the only way Comey can be sure his words won't be misrepresented.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...tify_before_lawmakers_but_only_in_public.html
 
Meadmaker said:
Well this is an interesting development. I've just been skimming, but I haven't seen reference to this.

According to an anonymous source that is allegedly a close associate of Mr. Comey, Comey refused the invitation to testify to a closed session of a Congressional committee, but said he would testify to a public session.

I do so hope this report is true.
Click to expand...


Ah. I saw a headline about that recently, but I can't remember where. I thought it was interesting, but didn't dive in, so I didn't realize he had refused a closed session.

One might think he has something to say, and wants everyone to hear it.
 
Last edited:
Comey knows hw deep the GOP is tied up in this: it looks more and more that if Trump falls, he'll take Pence and the entire RNC-leadership with him.

TBH, that would explain a lot why most of the critics of Trump within the GOP have kept quiet. It is inhuman how little spine Cruz or Christie have and how little fight there is in Rubio - but if someone told them that gunning for Donald could mean the end of the Party itself, they probably would do whatever, just not to get caught in the net of prosecution.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Comey knows hw deep the GOP is tied up in this: it looks more and more that if Trump falls, he'll take Pence and the entire RNC-leadership with him.

TBH, that would explain a lot why most of the critics of Trump within the GOP have kept quiet. It is inhuman how little spine Cruz or Christie have and how little fight there is in Rubio - but if someone told them that gunning for Donald could mean the end of the Party itself, they probably would do whatever, just not to get caught in the net of prosecution.
Click to expand...

As to the marked above, "From your mouth to Dog's ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom