At least 6 White House advisers reportedly used private email accounts for government business

Dafinch · Sep 25, 2017

http://www.businessinsider.com/whit...shner-trump-priebus-bannon-cohn-miller-2017-9

ONLY six, lol? I await the firestorm of criticism of this action, which has been declared outrageous for other public figures. For some reason, I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. Btw, family members screwing up again, Jr. gonna be grilled again in Congress and you can be sure that Mueller is gonna come a-calling to him, sooner or later, Rump is gonna get butt fucked-again-on the health care he promised to change "one Day One," his nominees are disgracing themselves left and write(latest, Hypocrite of the Year Tom Price), and Rump accomplished what heretofore was thought to be practically impossible: uniting NFL players and owners, lol. He seemingly only just found out that Puerto Ricans are Americans, too, and instead of focusing on that, not to mention that OTHER Fat Fucking Fanatic threatening to give us a taste of the Big Nuke, that scumbag is ginning up a bunch of Alabama voters over free speech. Are we tired of WINNING yet?

ointer:Shush()*:nohead:cockingasnook()

Seymour · Sep 26, 2017

I could never get tired of winning - and Donnie says the economy is going to get even better when he cuts taxes - man are we killing it - i heard China felt Trumps iron fist and stopped all trade with lil rocket man - amazing

bilbal · Sep 26, 2017

yawn, is that all? get back to me when they've set up unencrypted secret severs in their basements, have purposefully moved top secret documents off of government servers, have destroyed 30,000+ subpoenaed emails, have destroyed cell phones, hard drives, and laptops with hammers, and left top secret information on laptops that any old schmuck like Anthony Weiner can access.

superbeets · Sep 26, 2017

superbeets · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch · Sep 26, 2017

I left out what might be most important of all: sooner or later, 'ole Paulie Walnuts is gonna get indicted, and it'll probably be by NY AG Schniderman(who has been hob nobbing with Mueller, since Numbnuts can't pardon people for state crimes as he can federal ones). Manafort doesn't impress me as the kinda guy who is gonna maintain the Wall of Silence, lol: that bloated prick will rat everybody out if he's facing a month in Club Fed, let alone hard time in a state pen.

LENBO · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch said:
I left out what might be most important of all: sooner or later, 'ole Paulie Walnuts is gonna get indicted, and it'll probably be by NY AG Schniderman(who has been hob nobbing with Mueller, since Numbnuts can't pardon people for state crimes as he can federal ones). Manafort doesn't impress me as the kinda guy who is gonna maintain the Wall of Silence, lol: that bloated prick will rat everybody out if he's facing a month in Club Fed, let alone hard time in a state pen.

In other news, Trump has no shot to win the election.
Get back to doing what you do best ankle grabber.

festeringZit · Sep 26, 2017

DuhhhhhFInch, the dumbest fucker in the forum , wheeeeee!!!

Dave007inVegas · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch said:
I left out what might be most important of all: sooner or later, 'ole Paulie Walnuts is gonna get indicted, and it'll probably be by NY AG Schniderman(who has been hob nobbing with Mueller, since Numbnuts can't pardon people for state crimes as he can federal ones). Manafort doesn't impress me as the kinda guy who is gonna maintain the Wall of Silence, lol: that bloated prick will rat everybody out if he's facing a month in Club Fed, let alone hard time in a state pen.

Really?

That presidents have pardon powers is clear in the Constitution. It states that commanders-in-chief have power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Trump “can pardon anyone he wants (except maybe himself) because the pardon power has very few limits on it,” said Brian Kalt, a professor of law at Michigan State University.

Nice try. Now go get your shine box.

GasMan · Sep 26, 2017

The little cocksucking queer is building his courage up little by little...it won't be long before he's back in here full time even after taking the worst beating any poster of all time has ever taken on any internet forum, anywhere.

Lol at his life

Acebb · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch said:
since Numbnuts can't pardon people for state crimes as he can federal ones).

You're so fucking dumb it is embarrassing.

The fact that you came back here after your epic election night beclowing is hilarious.

SheriffJoe · Sep 26, 2017

Even the Washington Compost shot this down this dumb theory.

Looks like another "Ben Carson lost his brain surgeon license!" type thread in the making.

festeringZit · Sep 26, 2017

I'm kind of glad he's back, because he's so fun to laugh at. He's just so fucking stupid.

Dafinch · Sep 26, 2017

Dave007inVegas said:
Really?

That presidents have pardon powers is clear in the Constitution. It states that commanders-in-chief have power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Trump “can pardon anyone he wants (except maybe himself) because the pardon power has very few limits on it,” said Brian Kalt, a professor of law at Michigan State University.

Nice try. Now go get your shine box.

Nice try, but, dead wrong...again. Now, go fuck your mother(ANOTHER line from "Good Fellas)

[h=1]Trump can dodge federal crimes with pardons — but not state law[/h][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]BY ASHA RANGAPPA - [FONT=&quot]09/03/17 09:40 AM EDT

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Once again, President Trump seeks to be hoisted on his own petard. His reaction since Charlottesville has placed him firmly on the side of those who are trying to preserve the confederate monuments and flags rapidly being brought down across the country. In doing so, Trump is supporting "states’ rights,” the euphemistic characterization that glosses over the history of slavery these symbols represent.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But states’ rights take on a different meaning in the realm of criminal law. News that special counsel Robert Mueller has paired up with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman suggests that he might be taking advantage of the special relationship states have with the federal government in the realm of criminal prosecution to end run the president’s pardon power — if he is, then “states’ rights” might just become Trump’s Achilles heel.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Robert Mueller’s investigation is a federal investigation that is proceeding on two tracks: a counterintelligence track and a criminal track. Most of what is discovered in the former may never come to light, given that it is based on classified methods and sources. But what Mueller uncovers in his criminal investigation will become public in the event that he brings criminal charges. President Trump, however, could undercut this possibility by granting pardons to the targets of Mueller’s investigation if they are convicted. He could even pardon Mueller’s targets preemptively, leaving potential prosecutions of federal crimes dead in the water before they even begin.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unfortunately for Trump, the story may not end there. This is because a legal principle called “dual sovereignty” allows a state (or multiple states) to prosecute people for the same crimes as the federal government, if the conduct constitutes a crime and was committed in that state.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is true even if the person has already been tried by the federal government.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Under the dual sovereignty principle, the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy — which prevents the government from trying someone twice for the same crime — doesn’t apply if the second trial is by a different “sovereign” — in this case, the state.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]How is this possible? The idea of dual sovereignty rests on the premise that the power of the states to prosecute crimes existed before the creation of the federal government, and is reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, everyone is a citizen of both the United States and of a state or territory — and therefore owes allegiance to the laws of each. What’s more, the United States and an individual state may be protecting different interests, even if they are prosecuting the same crime.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A good example would be if someone murdered a U.S. marshal in, say, Virginia. A federal prosecution might be brought under a statute that makes it a crime to threaten or kill public officials. And a state prosecution might be brought for second-degree murder. In the former case, the United States has an interest in protecting the safety of its public officials. In the latter case, the State of Virginia has an interest in deterring crime and protecting its denizens from dangerous offenders.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter put this in “states’ rights” terms in a 1959 case called Bartkus v. Illinois, writing “it would be in derogation of our federal system to displace the reserved power of the States over state offenses by reason of prosecution…by federal authorities beyond the control of the states.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The states’ rights argument for New York to pursue its own prosecutions against members of the Trump team is especially sound. In particular, many of the lines of inquiry that Mueller is pursuing appear to involve possible financial crimes, like money laundering or tax evasion.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Critics of Mueller’s investigation, including Republican members of Congress and the president himself, have argued that looking into these crimes exceeds Mueller’s mandate, which is to get to the bottom of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. By contrast, New York, as the financial epicenter of the country, has a very direct and vested interest in ensuring the integrity of its financial institutions and in ensuring that its citizens have not been defrauded by people doing business in the state who haven’t paid their taxes.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In fact, given that the bulk of criminal laws rests with states, not the federal government, a true states’ rights advocate might argue that the State of New York ought to protect its interests by prosecuting every possible charge it can — which may arguably exceed the number and type of crimes that might be available to Mueller.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The downside for Trump is that his presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes — for the same reasons that underlie the dual sovereignty principle. Mueller, of course, knows this, and may be setting up the infrastructure to allow Schneiderman to pursue any prosecutions in the event he can’t – or to conduct them simultaneously.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Either way, Trump may soon learn that the “states’ rights” ostensibly represented by the monuments and flags he reveres includes the power to bring his campaign team — and even him — to justice.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Asha Rangappa is a former special agent in the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI in New York City. She is currently an associate dean at Yale Law School. Follow her on Twitter [FONT=&quot]@AshaRangappa_.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

NFLTrends · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch said:
Nice try, but, dead wrong...again. Now, go fuck your mother(ANOTHER line from "Good Fellas)

[h=1]Trump can dodge federal crimes with pardons — but not state law[/h][FONT="][COLOR=#666666][FONT="]BY ASHA RANGAPPA - [FONT="]09/03/17 09:40 AM EDT

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Once again, President Trump seeks to be hoisted on his own petard. His reaction since Charlottesville has placed him firmly on the side of those who are trying to preserve the confederate monuments and flags rapidly being brought down across the country. In doing so, Trump is supporting "states’ rights,” the euphemistic characterization that glosses over the history of slavery these symbols represent.[/FONT][FONT="]But states’ rights take on a different meaning in the realm of criminal law. News that special counsel Robert Mueller has paired up with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman suggests that he might be taking advantage of the special relationship states have with the federal government in the realm of criminal prosecution to end run the president’s pardon power — if he is, then “states’ rights” might just become Trump’s Achilles heel.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Robert Mueller’s investigation is a federal investigation that is proceeding on two tracks: a counterintelligence track and a criminal track. Most of what is discovered in the former may never come to light, given that it is based on classified methods and sources. But what Mueller uncovers in his criminal investigation will become public in the event that he brings criminal charges. President Trump, however, could undercut this possibility by granting pardons to the targets of Mueller’s investigation if they are convicted. He could even pardon Mueller’s targets preemptively, leaving potential prosecutions of federal crimes dead in the water before they even begin.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Unfortunately for Trump, the story may not end there. This is because a legal principle called “dual sovereignty” allows a state (or multiple states) to prosecute people for the same crimes as the federal government, if the conduct constitutes a crime and was committed in that state.[/FONT][FONT="]This is true even if the person has already been tried by the federal government.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Under the dual sovereignty principle, the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy — which prevents the government from trying someone twice for the same crime — doesn’t apply if the second trial is by a different “sovereign” — in this case, the state.[/FONT][FONT="]How is this possible? The idea of dual sovereignty rests on the premise that the power of the states to prosecute crimes existed before the creation of the federal government, and is reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, everyone is a citizen of both the United States and of a state or territory — and therefore owes allegiance to the laws of each. What’s more, the United States and an individual state may be protecting different interests, even if they are prosecuting the same crime.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]A good example would be if someone murdered a U.S. marshal in, say, Virginia. A federal prosecution might be brought under a statute that makes it a crime to threaten or kill public officials. And a state prosecution might be brought for second-degree murder. In the former case, the United States has an interest in protecting the safety of its public officials. In the latter case, the State of Virginia has an interest in deterring crime and protecting its denizens from dangerous offenders.[/FONT][FONT="]Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter put this in “states’ rights” terms in a 1959 case called [I]Bartkus v. Illinois[/I], writing “it would be in derogation of our federal system to displace the reserved power of the States over state offenses by reason of prosecution…by federal authorities beyond the control of the states.”[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]The states’ rights argument for New York to pursue its own prosecutions against members of the Trump team is especially sound. In particular, many of the lines of inquiry that Mueller is pursuing appear to involve possible financial crimes, like money laundering or tax evasion.[/FONT][FONT="]Critics of Mueller’s investigation, including Republican members of Congress and the president himself, have argued that looking into these crimes exceeds Mueller’s mandate, which is to get to the bottom of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. By contrast, New York, as the financial epicenter of the country, has a very direct and vested interest in ensuring the integrity of its financial institutions and in ensuring that its citizens have not been defrauded by people doing business in the state who haven’t paid their taxes.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]In fact, given that the bulk of criminal laws rests with states, not the federal government, a true states’ rights advocate might argue that the State of New York ought to protect its interests by prosecuting every possible charge it can — which may arguably exceed the number and type of crimes that might be available to Mueller.[/FONT][FONT="]The downside for Trump is that his presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes — for the same reasons that underlie the dual sovereignty principle. Mueller, of course, knows this, and may be setting up the infrastructure to allow Schneiderman to pursue any prosecutions in the event he can’t – or to conduct them simultaneously.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Either way, Trump may soon learn that the “states’ rights” ostensibly represented by the monuments and flags he reveres includes the power to bring his campaign team — and even him — to justice.[/FONT][FONT="][I]Asha Rangappa is a former special agent in the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI in New York City. She is currently an associate dean at Yale Law School. Follow her on Twitter [COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]@AshaRangappa_.[/FONT][/I]
[/FONT][FONT="][COLOR=#666666][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I wonder who this woman writes for, and if she could possibly be biased in any way....

Lets let the jury here decide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/asha-rangappa

I rest my case

Dafinch · Sep 26, 2017

NFLTrends said:
I wonder who this woman writes for, and if she could possibly be biased in any way....

Lets let the jury here decide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/asha-rangappa

I rest my case

Wtf does who she writes for have to do with the law, you fucking idiot???? Did you not see this part of the article?
This is because a legal principle called “dual sovereignty” allows a state (or multiple states) to prosecute people for the same crimes as the federal government, if the conduct constitutes a crime and was committed in that state.This is true even if the person has already been tried by the federal government.Under the dual sovereignty principle, the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy — which prevents the government from trying someone twice for the same crime — doesn’t apply if the second trial is by a different “sovereign” — in this case, the state.

What, about the above, do you not understand, you brainless putz?

hno:Loser!@#0:think2:

NFLTrends · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch said:
Wtf does who she writes for have to do with the law, you fucking idiot???? Did you not see this part of the article?
[FONT=&][FONT=&]This is because a legal principle called “dual sovereignty” allows a state (or multiple states) to prosecute people for the same crimes as the federal government, if the conduct constitutes a crime and was committed in that state.[/FONT][FONT=&]This is true even if the person has already been tried by the federal government.[/FONT][FONT=&]Under the dual sovereignty principle, the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy — which prevents the government from trying someone twice for the same crime — doesn’t apply if the second trial is by a different “sovereign” — in this case, the state.

What, about the above, do you not understand, you brainless putz?hno:Loser!@#0:think2:
[/FONT][/FONT]

Making liberals whine, cry and seek gay sex is not yet a crime.... so, he cant be prosecuted

Dafinch · Sep 26, 2017

Sheriff Joe said:
Even the Washington Compost shot this down this dumb theory.

Looks like another "Ben Carson lost his brain surgeon license!" type thread in the making.

Uh, no, the Washington Post did NOT shoot it down, as the story below shows, you lying sack of shit. You're as big a liar as your scumbag namesake that Rump disgracefully pardoned. The sooner THAT prick is worm food, the better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...xtend-to-state-crimes/?utm_term=.f06710381e8a

Trump and Manafort get big reminder that pardon power does not extend to state crimes
Politico reported Wednesday that New York’s attorney general Eric Schneiderman is now working with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in the probe of financial transactions involving Paul Manafort, a story independently confirmed by The Washington Post by a source familiar with the investigation.While the involvement of Schneiderman could produce nothing and is in an early stage, the news sends an important message to President Trump: his pardon power does not extend to state crimes.In the event Manafort or anyone else is charged under New York law, or threatened with indictment, there will be nothing Trump can do about it.His “power to grant reprieves and pardons” only covers “offenses against the United States,” according to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.Reports of Schneiderman’s interest in Manafort are not new.

But the news that the New York attorney general is teaming up with Mueller attracted a good deal of attention from Trump critics because of the pardon issue. Trump pointedly tweeted in July that he has “complete power to pardon” aides, family members and possibly even himself. His pardon Friday of former Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio was a seen by some as strong message that he is willing to use the pardon power liberally.According to the Politico report:

The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.No decision has been made on where or whether to file charges. “Nothing is imminent,” said one of the people familiar with the case.

A spokeswoman for Schneiderman declined to comment.Manafort has denied any wrongdoing.There are plenty of points of entry into the Manafort probe for a New York prosecutor.The Wall Street Journal reported in May that Schneiderman and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., were examining Manafort real estate transactions across the U.S., including in New York, “for indications of money-laundering and fraud.”NBC news reported that some of those New York loans were financed in part by a Ukrainian émigré to the U.S.Manafort told NBC through a spokesman that his transactions were “executed in a transparent fashion …” But NBC reported that Manafort’s name and signature did not appear on loan documents.Manafort was chairman of Trump’s campaign until he resigned amid growing scrutiny of his decade of work in Ukraine on behalf of a Russia-friendly political party, the Party of Regions.

Manafort’s personal finances may be totally unrelated to Mueller’s probe into possible coordination of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.But Mueller could conceivably use any jeopardy faced by Manafort in New York to gain his cooperation into the broader investigation, without the hindrance of a Trump pardon of Manafort.Indeed, The Post reported earlier this month that Manafort’s allies feared that Meuller wants to build a case against Manafort independent of the 2016 campaign “in hopes that he would provide information against others in Trump’s inner circle in exchange for lessening his legal exposure.”

Dafinch · Sep 26, 2017

NFLTrends said:
Making liberals whine, cry and seek gay sex is not yet a crime.... so, he cant be prosecuted

Nice, responsive answer, which obviously means, I got bitch slapped and have no comeback, so I'll just respond idiotically.

NFLTrends · Sep 26, 2017

Dafinch said:
Nice, responsive answer, which obviously means, I got bitch slapped and have no comeback, so I'll just respond idiotically.

Which you usually do... but followed by 300 childish emoji's

At least 6 White House advisers reportedly used private email accounts for government business

Member

Member

Member

New member

New member

Member

RX Member

Member

Life's a bitch, then you die!

Member

Member

Rx Normal

Member

Member

New member

Member

New member

Member

Member

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page