Nature and Extent of Misconduct

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Trump haters also jack themselves off over this emoluments bullshit. (here's poking a stick in yer eye ecky9.5k). ah yes .. Benji's snuff box. nothing burger. making a profit in commerce is not a gift as defined by the emoluments clause, which has never been tested to begin with. let these Trump haters try it in court. that dog won't hunt.

Here's mud in YOUR eye.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalen...orals-clauses/

Trump And Contractual Morals Clauses

In the case of Trump, there are many examples of his conduct that can be used to terminate a license agreement under a typical licensee-friendly morals clause. The numerous accusations of sexual misconduct, including his own statements about grabbing women by their “p——-,” his racist comments about Mexicans, his erratic and bizarre behavior on Twitter, his unabashed profiting off the presidency of the United States, the allegations of conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, the allegations of obstruction of justice during the investigation into Russia’s interference in our elections, the impeachment hearings and its allegations and, of course, impeachment if that were to occur. Lawyers in the Trump Organization (like his admittedly unethical fixer, Michael Cohen), who likely more intimately know the Trump’s immoral, unethical, and even potentially criminal behavior, perhaps negotiated very restrictive morals clauses to prevent termination.

[oeb11]

Morals - the DPST's claim moral high ground. !!!
9500- the DPST's have no concept of morals, and never will.

The emoluments BS is just more of the same hyper-partisan amoral Lying the DPST's have been carrying on for the last three years against Trump, and at a slightly lower rate for long before the last 3 years.

Take the Emoluments case to the SC - see what happens.

They know they will lose.

DPST's produce CO2 - and nothing else.
Go smoke some more "cigarettes"!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Here's mud in YOUR eye.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalen...orals-clauses/

Trump And Contractual Morals Clauses

of the list of moral turpitudes

every one on the list falls into a category of either lies or to be charitable, misstatements of fact, opinions, mere partisan allegation or wishes

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Morals - the DPST's claim moral high ground. !!!
9500- the DPST's have no concept of morals, and never will.

The emoluments BS is just more of the same hyper-partisan amoral Lying the DPST's have been carrying on for the last three years against Trump, and at a slightly lower rate for long before the last 3 years.

Take the Emoluments case to the SC - see what happens.

They know they will lose.

DPST's produce CO2 - and nothing else.
Go smoke some more "cigarettes"!

[oeb11]

Thanks for the pic of DPST 'smoking" stalwarts of the Party!
Nowadays DPST's regard Cheech and Chong as hypcrites for being the capitalist money makers they are.

DPST's really know how to choose their self-satire!
Shot oneself in the foot again - 95 turkeys!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Thanks for the pic of DPST 'smoking" stalwarts of the Party!
Nowadays DPST's regard Cheech and Chong as hypcrites for being the capitalist money makers they are.

DPST's really know how to choose their self-satire!
Shot oneself in the foot again - 95 turkeys!

You little, little brain.

". . . irreversibly progressive depletion of the global gene pool. It all adds up to oblivion, pal. Governments will fall."

You scared yet, you little, little shit?

[BlisswithKriss]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

that's what you said about the Mueller report. how'd that work out for ya?


BAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAA

Last time I looked regarding the Mueller Report, the AG Bill Barr decided to put it under wraps and decline full access by the Dems.
Oh and Trump never got to testify under oath as requested by Mueller. Maybe it’s because it was guaranteed he would commit perjury. He can’t stop lying. If you haven’t noticed
That’s why I’d like Barr, who I regard as corrupt as Trump, to be impeached too. And should be removed from office.
FYI his job is to serve the American people and NOT be another toady for Trump,
Unfortunately Barr has a history of being unlawful, be biased and show himself to be a Reich wing partisan. No wonder Trump hired him in the first place.

[oeb11]

95 turkeys - Thank you for your usual insults.

That and foolish memes are all One has.

No - not the least bit intimidated by keyboard warrior in Mom's basement .
It is 95 turkeys own fear and insecurity, plus inability to post anything cogent and constructive that leads to the 2nd grade level posts as above.

Name-calling and scatology.

Thanks for revealing oneself.

LOL

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by oeb11

95 turkeys - Thank you for your usual insults.

That and foolish memes are all One has.

No - not the least bit intimidated by keyboard warrior in Mom's basement .
It is 95 turkeys own fear and insecurity, plus inability to post anything cogent and constructive that leads to the 2nd grade level posts as above.

Name-calling and scatology.

Thanks for revealing oneself.

LOL

From one troll to another, you're welcome. It's too bad you don't have a sense of humor. You might be entertaining.


No antagonistic DPST shit from you this time though. Just the scatology thing. I commend you on your restraint.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by BlisswithKriss

Last time I looked regarding the Mueller Report, the AG Bill Barr decided to put it under wraps and decline full access by the Dems.
Oh and Trump never got to testify under oath as requested by Mueller. Maybe it’s because it was guaranteed he would commit perjury. He can’t stop lying. If you haven’t noticed
That’s why I’d like Barr, who I regard as corrupt as Trump, to be impeached too. And should be removed from office.
FYI his job is to serve the American people and NOT be another toady for Trump,
Unfortunately Barr has a history of being unlawful, be biased and show himself to be a Reich wing partisan. No wonder Trump hired him in the first place.

did he? or are you just making shit up? the nearly unredacted report was available to all the ranking Democrats. what did they do? they balked at reading it. so your point was .. what exactly?


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...dacted-1295105


Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report

"Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday."


"The six Democrats to whom Barr offered access to the report boycotted en masse, complaining that Barr should have provided a fully unredacted report to a broader set of lawmakers investigating Trump’s conduct. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has subpoenaed Barr and the Justice Department for the full report and Mueller’s underlying evidence"


the Dems wanted the entire report released, unredacted, as political fodder against Trump. guess who changed the rules to prevent that during Clinton's impeachment?




Rep. Jerry Nadler in his own words in 1998 on the release of Kenneth Starr Report on Bill Clinton

https://saraacarter.com/rep-jerry-na...-bill-clinton/


Charlie Rose: New York City and a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman Nadler, thank you for joining us. Rep.

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): It’s a pleasure.


Charlie Rose: Tell me where we– about this day and a sense of what it was like to be in the House and the anticipation of this arriving and where we go from here. Rep.


Jerrold Nadler: Well, we were just– the House was just reassembling today. We haven’t been in session for a month, so people were just arriving. I just got here in mid-afternoon, after having a series of meetings in New York. But we did get the report, which is now in the hands of the sergeant-at-arms under armed guard. It’s 36 boxes. We’re told it’s two copies, so it means 18 boxes per copy. There is, I gather, a 400- or 500-page report and the balance is appendices and supporting materials. Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member — is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all. Now, the House Rules Committee will be meeting overnight, and I presume that we will vote tomorrow probably on a recommended rule as to how to handle the report.



Nadler's Precedent: Exonerating Bill Clinton

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/t...g-bill-clinton


"Are we going to have a new test if someone wants to run for office: Are you now or have you ever been an adulterer?" he said.


The date was Dec. 19, 1998. The House was considering articles of impeachment that the Judiciary Committee had approved against then-President Bill Clinton. The outraged individual, speaking on the House floor, was Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York.


Nadler now serves as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has vowed he will follow up on the now-concluded investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller — which found no crime committed by President Donald Trump.


BAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA

[BlisswithKriss]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

did he? or are you just making shit up? the nearly unredacted report was available to all the ranking Democrats. what did they do? they balked at reading it. so your point was .. what exactly?


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...dacted-1295105


Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report

"Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday."


"The six Democrats to whom Barr offered access to the report boycotted en masse, complaining that Barr should have provided a fully unredacted report to a broader set of lawmakers investigating Trump’s conduct. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has subpoenaed Barr and the Justice Department for the full report and Mueller’s underlying evidence"


the Dems wanted the entire report released, unredacted, as political fodder against Trump. guess who changed the rules to prevent that during Clinton's impeachment?




Rep. Jerry Nadler in his own words in 1998 on the release of Kenneth Starr Report on Bill Clinton

https://saraacarter.com/rep-jerry-na...-bill-clinton/


Charlie Rose: New York City and a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman Nadler, thank you for joining us. Rep.

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): It’s a pleasure.


Charlie Rose: Tell me where we– about this day and a sense of what it was like to be in the House and the anticipation of this arriving and where we go from here. Rep.


Jerrold Nadler: Well, we were just– the House was just reassembling today. We haven’t been in session for a month, so people were just arriving. I just got here in mid-afternoon, after having a series of meetings in New York. But we did get the report, which is now in the hands of the sergeant-at-arms under armed guard. It’s 36 boxes. We’re told it’s two copies, so it means 18 boxes per copy. There is, I gather, a 400- or 500-page report and the balance is appendices and supporting materials. Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member — is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all. Now, the House Rules Committee will be meeting overnight, and I presume that we will vote tomorrow probably on a recommended rule as to how to handle the report.



Nadler's Precedent: Exonerating Bill Clinton

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/t...g-bill-clinton


"Are we going to have a new test if someone wants to run for office: Are you now or have you ever been an adulterer?" he said.


The date was Dec. 19, 1998. The House was considering articles of impeachment that the Judiciary Committee had approved against then-President Bill Clinton. The outraged individual, speaking on the House floor, was Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York.


Nadler now serves as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has vowed he will follow up on the now-concluded investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller — which found no crime committed by President Donald Trump.


BAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA

Whatever you say cupcake...why all this garbage you post. Can’t your plum sized brain just give us a succinct reply? Keep on topic dikwad. However the moment that Trump realized that he wasn’t going to get impeached because of the report, he goes out and removes all doubt, by being emboldened and doing his strong arm BS with the Ukraine leader. Talk about being really stupid, just like you Wacko Kid. And you don’t spin Reich wing crap. Then you add all this childish irrelevant gobblegook. But what would I expect from my pet Monkey. But there you go.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

From one troll to another, you're welcome. It's too bad you don't have a sense of humor. You might be entertaining.


No antagonistic DPST shit from you this time though. Just the scatology thing. I commend you on your restraint.

The guy who Nurses his political cartoon thread whines about your memes.

Classic trump party mentality

[rexdutchman]

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever
But it will be in the Senate with Federal rules of evidence in play and the Chief Justice of the SC sitting at the head of the "court". If it isn't a court of law, why is the Chief Justice presiding?


eccieuser9500
To make sure the rules are followed. Period!


Like in a court of law. Kinda my point don't you think?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Originally Posted by HedonistForever
But it will be in the Senate with Federal rules of evidence in play and the Chief Justice of the SC sitting at the head of the "court". If it isn't a court of law, why is the Chief Justice presiding?


eccieuser9500
To make sure the rules are followed. Period!


Like in a court of law. Kinda my point don't you think?

In other words, just to maintain order and discipline. But the rules of Congress are different. They're not fair. I'm not pouting here, they're not supposed to be fair. The court of law is supposed to be fair. Not the court of public opinion. In this case, the majority rules the rules.

And, if I may ask, why did you link my member profile page? Just wondering. Style points? I'm not necessarily disturbed by that.