Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 23, 2019

President Trump's lawyer argued in court on Wednesday that he should, as president, be immune from criminal prosecution - even if he murders someone in broad daylight with a gun.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Jesus h. Christ, these people are ruining this country!

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-10-23 02:02 PM | Reply

Not only that, they argue he couldn't even be investigated for murder.

#2 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 02:02 PM | Reply

Its True

OBAMA made us "conservatives" murder our "principles" and there was nothing we could do about it

-jeftoecentreberlyman

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-23 02:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We don't allow ambassadors from other countries to get away with a handful of crimes and yes murder is definitely among them. Dissbar this crackpot.

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2019-10-23 02:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let's say Hunter Biden was a hit man for Bursima and not just money laundering bribes for his father, would it be legal (non-impeachable) for Trump to ask for help to investigate?

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-23 02:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

#5 It's something his own FBI and partisan DOJ are more than equipped to investigate, but the topic of this thread is whether the President is Constitutionally protected from any law enforcement investigation whatsoever. Try to stay on topic, moron

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

#5 that wasn't Trump's crime. Educate yourself.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-23 02:35 PM | Reply

Trump's lawyer is wrong.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-23 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump has always thought himself above the law, even when he wasn't President... as do many billionaires, and some multi-millionaires, who are accustomed to buying the best lawyers, and even the best laws, the best P, and the best anything else they want for their own benefit.

One might think that stories like this won might one day discourage even his supporters who have put him above the law.... naw.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-23 02:39 PM | Reply

this one

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-23 02:40 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Trump's idea of "draining the swamp" is having his lawyers argue he can commit murder. Literally.

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-10-23 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He said he could shoot someone dead on 5th Ave and not lose any votes, and his supporters said aw, that's just the way he talks.

No, that's the way he thinks and acts and the way he has his lawyer represent him.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-23 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump's lawyer is wrong.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019

trump's lawyer is reflecting his client's opinion.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 02:49 PM | Reply

"President Trump's lawyer argued in court on Wednesday that he should, as president, be immune from criminal prosecution - even if he murders someone in broad daylight with a gun."

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

#14 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-10-23 02:51 PM | Reply

'Consovoy did concede that "once a president is removed from office" then he could be subject to criminal investigation'

Where's the motivation to leave office?

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 02:52 PM | Reply

So in Trump's sober opinion, being president is like having a 00 rating, a license to kill.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 02:54 PM | Reply

Donald Trump is impeachable simply on the basis of hiring a lawyer to argue his case that the person of the king is inviolable.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 02:58 PM | Reply

In the same way the Republicans went marching into the closed-door impeachment hearing today, it's not about facts. Trump's guilt or innocence is no longer relevant. Even claims about a lack of fairness are insincere. That's just for show. Trying to look tough.

The only discernible argument by Trump's defenders now is whether anyone can dare question their king. You heard Mick Mulvaney: Yeah, we did it. Get over it!

#18 | Posted by cbob at 2019-10-23 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The only discernible argument by Trump's defenders now is whether anyone can dare question their king.

#18 | Posted by cbob at

That about boils it down.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 03:00 PM | Reply

He could rape and murder one of his cultist's entire family on 5th Avenue and they'd still vote for him.

#20 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-10-23 03:02 PM | Reply

At this point you have to be a pretty enormous piece of sh** to still support Trump.

#21 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-10-23 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Meanwhile ...

Retorters argue a President can be impeached on hearsay.

Clowns.

#22 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:12 PM | Reply

"Retorters argue a President can be impeached on hearsay."

Are you arguing he can't, or just observing things?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 03:14 PM | Reply

#22 Who's relying on hearsay anymore? Have you even followed the news the last two weeks?

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 03:15 PM | Reply

Direct witness testimony is heresy now?

I think that lawyer is not arguing law but rather about how deluded trump apologists are.

#25 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-10-23 03:17 PM | Reply

The documents released by the white house, documenting an official phone call, using many professionals, is hearsay? No. They are the facts.

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-23 03:23 PM | Reply

#22 Who's relying on hearsay anymore? Have you even followed the news the last two weeks?

#24 | Posted by JOE

LOL

*anymore*

You can't quit hearsay.

You have less than nothing.

#27 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:24 PM | Reply

Congrats "patriots", you built this pseudo-dictatorial nonsense.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 03:26 PM | Reply

The documents released by the white house, documenting an official phone call, using many professionals, is hearsay? No. They are the facts.

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner

Well there's the testimony about the phone call, and then there is the transcript.

I'll go with the transcript.

You stick with the hearsay.

With the hearsay and few squares of *bath tissue* you can wipe your ass.

LOL

#29 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:27 PM | Reply

You can't quit hearsay.
You have less than nothing.

We have a White House "transcript" that largely corroborates the whistleblower complaint.

We have patriotic State Department employees showing up in droves with firsthand accounts of aid being withheld for domestic political purposes.

And you're content to sit here and be a troll. Have a nice day, loser.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 03:31 PM | Reply

If we're including witness testimony as hearsay, then I'd argue the transcript is also hearsay as it's not truly a transcript but rather a recollection. So we're in a position about who is more credible: droves of respected career diplomats with nary a blemish in their records, or the serial schemer responsible for Trump Steaks and Trump University and ... well this list could actually go on a REALLY long time.

Get bent, Dixville.

#31 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-10-23 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's say Hunter Biden was a hit man for Bursima and not just money laundering bribes for his father, would it be legal (non-impeachable) for Trump to ask for help to investigate?

#5 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Depends. Being a "hit man" is not illegal. But, I am assuming you mean to say that he murdered someone. In that case, it depends on jurisdiction and where it happened. If it happened in the US, then the DOJ should open an investigation and try to build their case. If they think that Ukraine has relevant information, then they should request it (I believe a treaty with Ukraine where we agree to provide assistance to each other's investigations). If they request it, and they are either rebuffed, or just do not think that Ukraine is forthcoming, then they should put in a request to the State Department for help in getting the Ukraine's cooperation. Then, if the State Department thinks it is necessary and of sufficient national interest, they can request that the President directly request Ukraine's cooperation.

If the US does not have jurisdiction (it did not happen in the US and cannot be connected to US regulated entities) then it becomes murkier. If the US has a clear national security or policy reason to have him prosecuted, then the President could request that Ukraine prosecute him (I could see us doing something like that with an international drug dealer or spy or something).

But, since this hypothetical is related to Biden (who is a presidential contender), you would want to make sure you had a long and detailed paper trail showing that everything was done for the right reason and that every 'i' was dotted and 't' was crossed, because you would STILL get accusations that you were abusing your office to attack a political opponent. As an example of that, look at the Obama administration's investigation of Trump. They DID do everything by the book (it was an official investigation, Obama did not get personally involved, contacts with foreign governments went through the proper channels, and Obama wasn't even running in the election) and STILL conservatives claim that it was politically motivated.

#32 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 03:47 PM | Reply

If we're including witness testimony as hearsay ..

#31 | Posted by dylanfan

Dude --

Yes.

A witness testifying to second hand information is the definition of hearsay.

Sorry. That's all you have.

Yours,

'Notch

#33 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:49 PM | Reply

.. then I'd argue the transcript is also hearsay as it's not truly a transcript but rather a recollection.

#31 | Posted by dylanfan

My god -- such brilliant word play!

Best of luck.

#34 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:51 PM | Reply

And you're content to sit here and be a troll.

#30 | Posted by JOE

I know facts to you are like garlic to a vampire.

Plonk me, Joe.

#35 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:52 PM | Reply

These witnesses are reporting their first hand experiences. Are you truly an idiot, or do you just play one on the DR?

#36 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-10-23 03:53 PM | Reply

At this point you have to be a pretty enormous piece of sh** to still support Trump.

#21 | Posted by moder8

Seems to me it would be a lot worse to call yourself a lawyer and support this hearsay impeachment effort.

You do you, though. It's your right.

#37 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:54 PM | Reply

These witnesses are reporting their first hand experiences.

#36 | Posted by dylanfan

Are they?

#38 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 03:57 PM | Reply

I bet you're wondering how I knew.

Something *funky* is going down.

It's true. *Funky*

This one is for you guys:

www.youtube.com

#39 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:00 PM | Reply

Are you truly an idiot, or do you just play one on the DR?

#36 | POSTED BY DYLANFAN AT 2019

Hes the real deal.

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-10-23 04:00 PM | Reply

#33 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

I'm not sure you understand what hearsay is. Or, more likely, you won't admit to understanding.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 04:00 PM | Reply

#33 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

But here's the thing: In YOUR opinion, if Trump can be proven (by YOUR standards) to have solicited dirt from a foreign power on a political rival, in order to ace the 2020 election, is that a good or a bad thing?

Note I didn't say an impeachable thing. Just whether you think it's good or bad.

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 04:03 PM | Reply

#33 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

But here's another thing: In YOUR opinion, is a president of the United States legally allowed to murder someone?

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 04:05 PM | Reply

I'm not sure you understand what hearsay is. Or, more likely, you won't admit to understanding.

#41 | POSTED BY ZED

He's just trolling. Don't feed him.

At least Goat occasionally made decent points. I don't, as a rule, plonk people because even the most annoying people sometimes make good points. But I might have to make an exception for Dix if he doesn't start at least occasionally posting something slightly intelligent just to get rid of useless noise.

#44 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#44-
I think part of the problem is that useless noise is about the only defense Trumpers have left.

#45 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-10-23 04:14 PM | Reply

Jesus h. Christ, these people are ruining this country!
#1 | Posted by kudzu

lets all get spun up about nothing. you libs are pathetic

#46 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-10-23 04:14 PM | Reply

#33 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

But here's another thing: In YOUR opinion, is a president of the United States legally allowed to murder someone?
#43 | Posted by Zed

I don't know. At face value, murder is illegal.

Unlike so many Retorters, I don't believe reading some article on the DR is going to make me an expert.

Reading through these comments, I dont see any discussion about actual *merits* discussed in the article one way or another.

Imagine that.

Other than the case of Vice President Burr back in 1803 this premise seems far fetched and irrelevant.

#47 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:17 PM | Reply

Anybody going to comment on *the merits* of the argument outline in the article?

Anybody know what *merits* are?

Anybody?

#48 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:20 PM | Reply

I came here expecting a roaring exegesis of Clinton v. Jones from 1997.

*disappointed*

#49 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:23 PM | Reply

OK, guyzzz. I read the article.

The issue came up in an SDNY case seeking Trump's taxes, somehow in relation to Stormy Daniels.

Remarkably, the primary precedent discussed in the article covers Bill Clinton's sexual assault(s) on Paula Jones.

Does that pique enough interest for anyone to read the article and join in meaningful discussion?

#50 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:29 PM | Reply

OK, guyzzz. I read the article.

#50 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH

Really? You post TWELVE times before that to this thread, and THEN you decide to read the article? Great job.

And you want "comments on the merits"? It is BS. As you pointed out, it was pretty well covered in Clinton v. Jones. You can see from the tone of the thread that pretty much everyone (even Jeff) thinks it is BS.

If you disagree with that sentiment, then how about YOU give us comments "on the merits"? Otherwise you are just demanding everyone else join you in a ----------.

#51 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

With the hearsay and few squares of *bath tissue* you can wipe your ass.
LOL

#29 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH AT 2019-10-23 03:27 PM | REPLY

Uh huh. Right. So witness testimony under oath is worth that. What do you think about the comments of anonymous internet posters who name themselves Dixville?

#52 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-23 04:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"With the hearsay and few squares of *bath tissue* you can wipe your ass."

With the hearsay and DixvilleNotch, Trump can wipe his.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 04:46 PM | Reply

With the hearsay and few squares of *bath tissue* you can wipe your ass.
LOL

#29 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH AT 2019-10-23 03:27 PM | REPLY

Stating what they personally experienced is t "hearsay" you worthless ----.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 04:48 PM | Reply

So witness testimony under oath is worth that. What do you think about the comments of anonymous internet posters who name themselves Dixville?

#52 | Posted by BruceBanner

Hearsay, like posts here on the DR, does not meet the standard for evidence.

Just because one is speaking under oath does not mean one is not speaking about hearsay. In the cases of these Democrat testimonies, the witnesses are testifying about what they have been told by others who may have direct knowledge.

You need witnesses with direct knowledge.

Good luck.

#55 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:52 PM | Reply

Let's say Hunter Biden was a hit man for Bursima and not just money laundering bribes for his father, would it be legal (non-impeachable) for Trump to ask for help to investigate?

#5 | Posted by visitor

But since he wasn't, you question is irrelevant.

But since you're arguing hypotheticals, what if Trump actually did shoot someone on 5th Avenue? Do you think he's immune to being investigated and perhaps indicted based on the evidence found?

OCU

#56 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-23 04:52 PM | Reply

#50 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH

Really? You post TWELVE times before that to this thread, and THEN you decide to read the article? Great job.

And you want "comments on the merits"? It is BS.

#51 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Dude, at least I read the article. You are on post 55.

Of course you won't comment on the merits.

None of you third rate Retorters will.

ROTFLMAO

#57 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 04:55 PM | Reply

"Of course you won't comment on the merits."

What merits?

.
.
.
The comment period has now closed

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 04:57 PM | Reply

As you pointed out, it was pretty well covered in Clinton v. Jones.

You can see from the tone of the thread that pretty much everyone (even Jeff) thinks it is BS.

#51 | Posted by gtbritishskull

OMG! Does the resident fence sitter think it is BS?

But I digress.

I didn't point out "it was pretty well covered in Clinton v. Jones."

What a bunch of know-nothing mumbeldypeg you spew.

You have no knowledge of Clinton v Jones.

No one but me on this thread even knows how that case comes up in the article.

The fact of the matter is I am the only Retorter in this thread to read and discuss the article.

You are *sloppy*.

#59 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:01 PM | Reply

The comment period has now closed

#58 | Posted by snoofy

This is the flagship article on the DR, breathlessly posted just a bit ago!

Will anyone but me read the article?

Maybe dancing bananas are necessary?

You are welcome.

ROTFLMAO

#60 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:03 PM | Reply

Since you asked:

I view the entire subpoena as an inappropriate fishing expedition not made in good faith.

#61 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:05 PM | Reply

Plonk me, Joe.

So you can @ me with stupid ---- and never be refuted? No thanks. I'll just ignore you until i'm bored.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 05:07 PM | Reply

The comment about murder was made in the light of this being an inappropriate fishing expedition.

The thread headline -- which is all you are discussing -- completely omits he inappropriate fishing expedition on which this case is based.

Moreover, I bet this subpoena for Trump's tax records won't even be enforced by this court. The judge won't have the balls.

It will have to be taken up by the Supreme Court.

If he loses his appeal, I bet Trump appeals to the Supreme Court within 10 days.

You guys always miss the story.

#63 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:11 PM | Reply

Is It Mania?
You may:

Have lots of energy
Feel high or wired
Have racing thoughts
Talk fast
Take more risks
Need less sleep than usual to feel rested
Have more distractions than usual
Have intense senses, such as smell and touch

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 05:12 PM | Reply

So you can @ me with stupid ---- and never be refuted?

#62 | Posted by JOE

I would never @ you, JOE.

I never think about you at all.

#65 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:12 PM | Reply

But since you're arguing hypotheticals, what if Trump actually did shoot someone on 5th Avenue? Do you think he's immune to being investigated and perhaps indicted based on the evidence found?
OCU

If we follow the precedent being set by the Democrats he could not be investigated if it was initiated by someone that would benefit politically.

#66 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-23 05:16 PM | Reply

If we follow the precedent being set by the Democrats he could not be investigated if it was initiated by someone that would benefit politically.

#66 | POSTED BY VISITOR

Why are you such a sycophantic, lying schitheap?

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 05:23 PM | Reply

Stating what they personally experienced is t "hearsay" you worthless ----.
#54 | Posted by jpw

If what they "personally experienced" is hearing someone else tell them about something someone else actually experienced, that would in fact be the definition of hearsay.

Not that your comment is relevant to the case at hand in this very thread. Is it?

#68 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:24 PM | Reply

For the love of God!

Isn't anyone going to compare and contrast Jones v. Clinton with Clinton v. Jones as they relate to the case at hand?

#69 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:36 PM | Reply

Is anyone clear on why Cy Vance even has standing?

#70 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:40 PM | Reply

"Is anyone clear on why Cy Vance even has standing?"

Suggestion:
You should try asking Dix.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 05:42 PM | Reply

He would be the one *in the know*.

#72 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-23 05:47 PM | Reply

I just listened to the story on NPR.

I want to believe this is the most absurd argument I've ever heard but I think we're going to see this ending up in the hands of supreme court.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2019-10-23 05:51 PM | Reply

"I just listened to the story on NPR."

NPR, you mean
Nazional Progressive Reichsradio.

You should try an unbiased source like RT.com.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 06:06 PM | Reply

I think such an extremist position will come back and bite the Buffoon and his lawyers in the a**.

#75 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-23 06:24 PM | Reply

#75

You're really going out on a limb there, Et Al.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-23 06:30 PM | Reply

Is anyone clear on why Cy Vance even has standing?

Standing to investigate state law crimes that occurred within his jurisdiction?

Standing to be sued by Trump who named him as a defendant in this case?

Please expand on your stupid question so we can figure out precisely how stupid you are.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 07:56 PM | Reply

I haven't read the entire thread so excuse me if this was already floated. Are people paying attention to the obvious fact Trump's lawyers are really arguing the OLC memo as some type of constitutionally-based settled law instead of an internal DOJ process white paper, which is actually all it is. The memo only constrains the DOJ and has no established standing as either legislative or judicial law because the DOJ has no constitutional power to codify federal law on its own.

Once that point is conceded, Trump's claim that the Constitution itself somehow inherently states that a sitting President is entirely above the law has no basis in fact, conjecture or reality. The very point of the Constitution and construction of co-equal branches of government was to maintain the rule of law as supreme over all of them. Putting a single person at an advantage over all others was anathema to all the Founders believed in, eschewing a monarchy for a presidency for the express purpose of making the position constrainable by the other two branches.

As with the first judge's opinion, I'm seeing the ultimate ruling here not only going against Trump's megalomaniacal galactic emperor complex, the OLC memo is likely to be trashed by the Courts as well, saying that as a matter of law, it has no standing whatsoever.

#78 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-23 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You need witnesses with direct knowledge.
Good luck.
#55 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH AT 2019-10-23 04:52 PM | REPLY

There has been ample evidence of that nature. You are uninformed because you only regurgitate con talking points and have never read or heard legitimate news reports.

#79 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-23 08:30 PM | Reply

Trump's lawyers argued more than what's being talked about above. They argued that Trump can't be stopped from committing a crime. He could shoot someone on 5th avenue, then shoot someone else, and keep going, and the police aren't allowed to do a thing. Then after he's done shooting everyone, he can't be detained, arrested, and he can't be investigated until after he's either impeached or out of office.

It was utterly insane.

#80 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-23 10:17 PM | Reply

One day Trump and his supporters will be recognized as the traitorous scum they are, and most will deny having ever supported him.

#81 | Posted by cbob at 2019-10-23 10:46 PM | Reply

They argued that Trump can't be stopped from committing a crime. He could shoot someone on 5th avenue, then shoot someone else, and keep going, and the police aren't allowed to do a thing. Then after he's done shooting everyone, he can't be detained, arrested

#80 | POSTED BY YAV

I am pretty sure all that is actually true. Similar to how law enforcement can't detain a Congressional representative and prevent them from appearing at a session, I am pretty sure law enforcement has no right to detain the President and prevent him from carrying out his duties. Though, I could be wrong in that. The resident lawyers might be able to say more definitively.

But, investigating doesn't prevent the President from carrying out his duties, so I don't see any good argument why it would not be allowed.

#82 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 11:47 PM | Reply

In other words, Trump is arguing that non-elected bureaucrats at the DOJ get to make the laws?
Anyone else's irony meter off the rails?

#83 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-10-24 03:40 AM | Reply

#83 - good point!

#84 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-24 07:37 AM | Reply

Keep in mind this is not just his lawyers argument but something he truly believes
Which means he will ignore any judicial actions against him
Not good people

#85 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-24 08:22 AM | Reply

Has anyone figured out whether DIXVILLENOTCH and Goatman are one and the same?

#86 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-24 09:33 AM | Reply

#86
I'm 90% sure of it at this point.

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 10:33 AM | Reply

I just heard this idea expressed on the radio, not a serious suggestion. If the President can't be charged with a crime even if he murders someone then what if Joe Biden got elected and Elizabeth Warren Vice President. Then Joe gets an AR-15 and goes over to the SC and kills the five conservative Justices? I think that pretty much totally obliterates the argument that you can't prosecute a President.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-24 12:28 PM | Reply

"Has anyone figured out whether DIXVILLENOTCH and Goatman are one and the same?"

I don't think so. Goatman can be annoying but he isn't stupid.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-24 12:29 PM | Reply

In any sane world, the notion that a US President is above investigation (much less prosecution) would be spat upon 9-0 by SCOTUS. In the current realm it's going to be closer than that.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 12:42 PM | Reply

"Has anyone figured out whether DIXVILLENOTCH and Goatman are one and the same?"
I don't think so. Goatman can be annoying but he isn't stupid.

#89 | Posted by danni

Hey!

Hivemind lady!

Stupid *is* as stupid *does*.

Are you thinking the DR Left is a *congress* of great minds?

It's not.

*seriously*

#91 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:00 PM | Reply

In any sane world, the notion that a US President is above investigation (much less prosecution) would be spat upon 9-0 by SCOTUS. In the current realm it's going to be closer than that.

#90 | Posted by JOE

Still can't bother to read the article, I see.

Bill Clinton used the same argument to try to hide his various lies under oath in '94. It is a long standing DOJ policy.

Bill's problem was Linda Tripp had *first hand* recordings of Monica Lewinsky running *her mouth*.

#92 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:05 PM | Reply

Will someone read the article already so we can have a discussion of what is really going on in this case?

#93 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:05 PM | Reply

Bill Clinton used the same argument to try to hide his various lies under oath in '94

And he lost, dumbass.

SCOTUS is not bound by internal DOJ white papers.

No response to #77, i see?

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 01:13 PM | Reply

Has anyone figured out whether DIXVILLENOTCH and Goatman are one and the same?

#86 | Posted by GalaxiePete

While I am flattered to be thought of in the same sentence as one of the DR's truly great thinkers, sadly it's just me.

I can think of at least 7 ways you can figure out that Goatie and I are separate accounts.

Number 4 will blow your mind.

#95 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:14 PM | Reply

Joe --

I'm not going to do your reading for you unless you ask nicely.

The answer to #77 is in the article.

I would also like to go over #69 with *someone*. Now there is a gold mine of debate!

I very much would like to discuss these points of interest with *someone*.

#96 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:19 PM | Reply

Trump's kill count is way less that any president in recent memory.

#97 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-24 01:21 PM | Reply

You've got to go back at least to Reagan to find a President with less blood on his hands than Trump.

Maybe Carter, certainly Ford.

Then Nixon, Johnson.

That's beyond recent memory.

#98 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:29 PM | Reply

The answer to #77 is in the article.

No it isn't. The word "standing" appears nowhere in the article - that was your word and your post.

#99 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 01:32 PM | Reply

Compare and contrast Jones v. Clinton with Clinton v. Jones as they relate to the case at hand.

#69 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

OK. I'll start.

Clinton won the former.

Lost the latter.

#100 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:33 PM | Reply

Is anyone clear on why Cy Vance even has standing?

#70 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

#101 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:34 PM | Reply

The answer to #77 is in the article.

No it isn't. The word "standing" appears nowhere in the article - that was your word and your post.

#99 | Posted by JOE

Well, now, there is your problem, Silly.

You have to know what 'standing' means to recognize the answer in the article.

Comprehension!

#102 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 01:37 PM | Reply

I know what it means. Expand upon your question as to whether he has it. What are you wondering about?

#103 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 01:40 PM | Reply

BTW, you're 100% Goatman, nobody else in the world is this childish, trivial and evasive.

How embarrassing and juvenile must someone be to post under separate usernames? What a sad life you must have.

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 01:41 PM | Reply

Posted by Joe

Jesus Christ, what are you crying about now?

Goat is so inside your head, you're seeing him in other posters. He's not really gone...there's really a little goat in all of us, right?

LOL

grow the ---- up, liljoe.

Dix doesn't have anywhere near the same style as Goat. You're completely incapable of determining what you're asserting and it's 1,000 miles above your head anyway.

#105 | Posted by eberly at 2019-10-24 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh look, the resodent ankle biter has shown up. Do you *ever* have something worth a turd to say?

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-24 02:12 PM | Reply

Meanwhile ...

Retorters argue a President can be impeached on hearsay.

Clowns.

#22 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

Meanwhile...

Cult members hope to sell the lie the only evidence is hearsay.

Morons.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-24 02:59 PM | Reply

nobody else in the world is this childish, trivial and evasive.

#104 | Posted by JOE

*wrong!*

#108 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 04:49 PM | Reply

How embarrassing and juvenile must someone be to post under separate usernames? What a sad life you must have.

#104 | Posted by JOE

How sad is your life that you you are at such a disadvantage when you engage with me that you immediately resort to ad hominem trolling?

Read the damn article already so we can talk about Cy Vance.

Think to yourself: What is it this man *does*?

#109 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 04:52 PM | Reply

Dix doesn't have anywhere near the same style as Goat.

#105 | Posted by Eberly

No one can.

*inimitable*

#110 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 04:55 PM | Reply

What I'm trying to discuss with you, Joe, are the most recent precedents for the case at hand in this thread.

Clinton won Jones v. Clinton in 1994

How did Clinton come to lose the case he subsequently brought against Jones -- Clinton v. Jones -- in 1997?

How does Cy Vance's standing compare to Paula Jones' standing?

Seek!

#111 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 05:00 PM | Reply

You do know that Cy Vance is associated with a case against President Trump, right?

And the argument that supposedly is the subject of this thread is part of that case?

Can we talk about the case, or do you want to talk about your reverence for Goatman?

#112 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 05:02 PM | Reply

Dix doesn't have anywhere near the same style as Goat.

#105 | Posted by Eberly

yeah he's capable of discussing the topic of the thread

#113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-24 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*he's* capable of discussing the topic of the thread

#113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

*vague pronoun reference*

#114 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-24 06:46 PM | Reply

Did RC finally give gaotturdtroll the boot for good?

#115 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-10-24 11:31 PM | Reply

Meanwhile ...
Retorters argue a President can be impeached on hearsay.
Clowns.
#22 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

Yeah, actually...the President's statements could be admitted as Non-Hearsay either for statements he made himself or statements made in a representative capacity...

So when Taylor says Sondland said Trump told him quid pro quo, that would be admissible as Non-Hearsay.

#116 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-25 12:23 PM | Reply

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

Best of luck.

#117 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-25 01:28 PM | Reply

Too bad no one read the article.

It's a fascinating case, Trump v. Vance, headed for the Supreme Court.

Anyone know how soon? Hint: It's in the article.

#118 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-25 01:31 PM | Reply

why not, ambassadors can.

#119 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-10-25 02:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort