DC Tom Posted November 26, 2018 Posted November 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: 1) Just because you childishly cover your ears and scream "I can't hear anything about corruption here," doesn't mean there is no corrupt intent. You are just playing games with the truth to cover for your corrupt leader. The only evidence I've seen for "corrupt intent" is your mindless repetition ofthe phrase "corrupt intent." Your mindless blather is not evidence. 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: 2) You are arguing an Attorney General doesn't need confirmed by the Senate. Enough said ACTING Attorney General, nitwit. An "acting" anyone doesn't need to be confirmed. That's the law - statutory, upheld by case law, nased on established precedent, all of which has been explained to you.
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Posted November 26, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: The only evidence I've seen for "corrupt intent" is your mindless repetition ofthe phrase "corrupt intent." Your mindless blather is not evidence. ACTING Attorney General, nitwit. An "acting" anyone doesn't need to be confirmed. That's the law - statutory, upheld by case law, nased on established precedent, all of which has been explained to you. BS, he fired Sessions after claiming he shouldn't have recused himself...that was Trump's argument. Acting?!? What's the difference?!? Nothing! God you are a little pawn.
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2018 Posted November 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: BS, he fired Sessions after claiming he shouldn't have recused himself...that was Trump's argument. Asked for his resignation, which Sessions gave. So Sessions is equally guilty of "corrupt intent" for being party to the mutual decision? 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Acting?!? What's the difference?!? Nothing! God you are a little pawn. Well, for starters...as acting AG, he's not eligible to be nominated to the post of Attorney General.
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Posted November 26, 2018 38 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Asked for his resignation, which Sessions gave. So Sessions is equally guilty of "corrupt intent" for being party to the mutual decision? Well, for starters...as acting AG, he's not eligible to be nominated to the post of Attorney General. After belittling, criticizing and complaining about the guy, over the Russia investigation for over a year. Sessions got sick of it and left, pressured to leave, you know it. For starters? Or is that all? He has the full power of AG, right? Without being confirmed by Senate. So basically none of your arguments should be taken seriously. You will say anything. Tool
Hedge Posted November 26, 2018 Posted November 26, 2018 22 minutes ago, Tiberius said: After belittling, criticizing and complaining about the guy, over the Russia investigation for over a year. Sessions got sick of it and left, pressured to leave, you know it. For starters? Or is that all? He has the full power of AG, right? Without being confirmed by Senate. So basically none of your arguments should be taken seriously. You will say anything. Tool Just checking... You do realize this isn't one of those "Last Post Wins" threads, right? 1
3rdnlng Posted November 26, 2018 Posted November 26, 2018 43 minutes ago, Hedge said: Just checking... You do realize this isn't one of those "Last Post Wins" threads, right? You do know that you are asking someone so unattached to reality that he doesn't even know when he shitshispants?
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: For starters? Or is that all? He has the full power of AG, right? Without being confirmed by Senate. Yes. For a limited amount of time. Because he's the ACTING AG. Again, this has all been explained to you multiple times.
GG Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Yes. For a limited amount of time. Because he's the ACTING AG. Again, this has all been explained to you multiple times. We know. Thus, he’s making you his cat toy.
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 1 hour ago, GG said: We know. Thus, he’s making you his cat toy. You'd think, but no. This is a philosophical investigation. He's very close to inventing a new Gatorman Fallacy.
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 Quote Several legal scholars have submitted an amicus brief in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General of the United States. The amici curiae (which means friends of the court) submitted this brief in the context of Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh‘s (D) challenge of the Whitaker appointment. Frosh has argued that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have replaced Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, not Whitaker, and has called the move “illegal and unconstitutional.” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/multiple-legal-scholars-just-escalated-the-challenge-of-matthew-whitakers-appointment/ 14 hours ago, Hedge said: Just checking... You do realize this isn't one of those "Last Post Wins" threads, right? Lol, the courts will weigh in on this issue soon.
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 Those "legal scholars" are wrong. So's whichever court the Democrats manage to venue-shop their way in to.
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 The reason for Senate confirmation underscores the unconstitutionality of President Trump’s unilateral appointment of Whitaker. Alexander Hamilton elaborated in Federalist 76: “It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature…He would be…afraid to bring forward… candidates who had no other merit than that… of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”
3rdnlng Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 It must be a slow day at the laundromat. The Federal Reserve "discussion" was more interesting.
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It must be a slow day at the laundromat. The Federal Reserve "discussion" was more interesting. I know, being right, like I am, gets boring.
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 No Tom, you are. You are actually denying the necessity of checks and balances. More proof you will just say anything as long as it supports Trump. No credibility
Recommended Posts