red viking Posted Tuesday at 01:55 PM Posted Tuesday at 01:55 PM 33 minutes ago, ionel said: The Director of NI says declassified documents revealing "overwhelming evidence" let's see how it plays out. Yah; these Trumptard cabinet members are always 100% honest. Especially when they get fired for saying anything that Trump doesn't like. Let me know when there's a shred of anything specific that comes out or Obama gets arrested. If it's truly overwhelming, he should have been arrested by now.
ionel Posted Tuesday at 04:30 PM Posted Tuesday at 04:30 PM 2 hours ago, red viking said: Let me know when there's a shred of anything specific that comes out or Obama gets arrested. If it's truly overwhelming, he should have been arrested by now. You think Obama is gonna be arrested or is that just you lying again? .
red viking Posted Tuesday at 04:36 PM Posted Tuesday at 04:36 PM 5 minutes ago, ionel said: You think Obama is gonna be arrested or is that just you lying again? I can 100% guarantee that he won't. Absolutely nothing new is coming out here.
mspart Posted Tuesday at 04:56 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 04:56 PM Let's just assume that the allegations are true, just as a thought exercise. Does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? That is the question that no one has answered yet. It doesn't matter if there will be a prosecution, indictment, or anything. Assuming the allegation is true, does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? mspart
WrestlingRasta Posted Tuesday at 05:08 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:08 PM 8 minutes ago, mspart said: Let's just assume that the allegations are true, just as a thought exercise. Does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? That is the question that no one has answered yet. It doesn't matter if there will be a prosecution, indictment, or anything. Assuming the allegation is true, does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? mspart So right off the bat, what is the specific allegations against Obama you would like to discuss. Gabbard says Obama Obama in the headlines, but the report, of which what has been released doesn't say much that would lead to any criminal charges, speaks to officials in the administration. Once you establish in your hypothetical specifically what is being alleged by Obama that may be a criminal offense in usual circumstance, we can then look specifically to the opinion given in the presidential immunity case, and try to answer your hypothetical from there.
red viking Posted Tuesday at 05:10 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:10 PM 13 minutes ago, mspart said: Let's just assume that the allegations are true, just as a thought exercise. Does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? That is the question that no one has answered yet. It doesn't matter if there will be a prosecution, indictment, or anything. Assuming the allegation is true, does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? mspart Don't know, but if he "manufactured evidence" as the wingers are proclaiming, I don't think he would be protected. Just a best guess. I don't think that manufacturing evidence falls within the presidential duties.
ionel Posted Tuesday at 05:27 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:27 PM 31 minutes ago, mspart said: Let's just assume that the allegations are true, just as a thought exercise. Does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? That is the question that no one has answered yet. It doesn't matter if there will be a prosecution, indictment, or anything. Assuming the allegation is true, does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? mspart Yes .
mspart Posted Tuesday at 06:55 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 06:55 PM 1 hour ago, red viking said: Don't know, but if he "manufactured evidence" as the wingers are proclaiming, I don't think he would be protected. Just a best guess. I don't think that manufacturing evidence falls within the presidential duties. Thank you for a straight answer RV. Much appreciated. mspart
mspart Posted Tuesday at 06:58 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 06:58 PM 1 hour ago, ionel said: Yes Succinct answer. Different than RVs. I disagree in that I don't think manufacturing intel data that goes against the data collected over the past 6 months with the express intent to stymie the incoming president is in the President's duties as put forth in the Constitution. But I can see where it could be argued otherwise. Argued unsuccessfully in my opinion, but still there could be an argument. mspart
ionel Posted Tuesday at 08:31 PM Posted Tuesday at 08:31 PM 1 hour ago, mspart said: Succinct answer. Different than RVs. I disagree in that I don't think manufacturing intel data that goes against the data collected over the past 6 months with the express intent to stymie the incoming president is in the President's duties as put forth in the Constitution. But I can see where it could be argued otherwise. Argued unsuccessfully in my opinion, but still there could be an argument. mspart What are they going to do to him if the answer is no? Maybe he can blame it in the autopen. Regardless nothing will ever happen to him. .
mspart Posted Tuesday at 10:09 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 10:09 PM 1 hour ago, ionel said: What are they going to do to him if the answer is no? Maybe he can blame it in the autopen. Regardless nothing will ever happen to him. I think this is true. I don't see them going after Obama, although it looks like he orchestrated it from the descriptions I've read. mspart
ionel Posted Tuesday at 10:16 PM Posted Tuesday at 10:16 PM 5 minutes ago, mspart said: I think this is true. I don't see them going after Obama, although it looks like he orchestrated it from the descriptions I've read. mspart I think it would be political suicide. .
Offthemat Posted Tuesday at 11:42 PM Posted Tuesday at 11:42 PM 1 hour ago, ionel said: I think it would be political suicide It could be political suicide to not hold him accountable. I have long favored exile for Obama and Hiliary.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now