Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties

I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision.

Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has.

But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS.

Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision. Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has. But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS. Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here?

No thats perfectly within the scope of POTUS roles.


I'm sure Panther will be here to say its allowed in the constitution

who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter.

The fanboys already have defended this.

"Just a father sticking up for his daughter. Nothing to see here".

Sexual assault.

Alleged child rape.

Failure to pay taxes.

Failure to pay contractors.

Lying every time he opens his mouth.

There's nothing the fanboys won't defend.

Absolutely nothing.

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:55am:

who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter.

Fine, explain Kellyanne Conway then

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:56am:

cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. Fine, explain Kellyanne Conway then

* cods quickly Googles 'Kellyanne Conway'

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:55am:

who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter.

Through the office of POTUS with all the influence that wields?

No Cods, he doesn't.

I'll save you the trouble, cods.

"The White House on Thursday said a top adviser to President Trump had been “counseled” after using a television appearance from the West Wing to promote the clothing and jewelry line sold under the brand of Trump’s daughter.

"The endorsement, in which Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Channel viewers to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff,” appeared to violate a key ethics rule barring federal employees from using their public office to endorse products — and the White House reaction was a rare acknowledgment of an ethical misstep."

http://liberalplug.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Untitled-26.png

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision. Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has. But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS. Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here?

Honkys excuse yesterday was that he was defending his daughter.  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:44am: Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision. Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has. But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS. Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here? Honkys excuse yesterday was that he was defending his daughter.  :D :D :D

Indeed.

Just "sticking it up his daughter".

Sorry, "sticking up for his daughter".


http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/trrr-605x330.jpg

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:55am:

who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter.

I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him.

Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not?

To "them", the dummy-spitting leftards worldwide, I simply say......tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk girls....

Get used to it. The President retains his Right to Free Speech guaranteed to All American Citizens, just now more people listen & more people will react.........it only gets sweeter from here!  http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif

freedom of speech?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


have you no shame defending this crap?

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

freedom of speech?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D have you no shame defending this crap?

None whatsoever! ;)

Yes John, I defend your right to your opinion that I should be ashamed. ;)

So put that bee in your prissy lil bonnet!    http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/finger005.gif..... Defend this....

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not? To "them", the dummy-spitting leftards worldwide, I simply say......tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk girls.... Get used to it. The President retains his Right to Free Speech guaranteed to All American Citizens, just now more people listen & more people will react.........it only gets sweeter from here!  http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif

WOuld you agree though that regardless of the legalities, it's a poor look for a president to be wasting his time on this?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not? To "them", the dummy-spitting leftards worldwide, I simply say......tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk girls.... Get used to it. The President retains his Right to Free Speech guaranteed to All American Citizens, just now more people listen & more people will react.........it only gets sweeter from here!  http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif WOuld you agree though that regardless of the legalities, it's a poor look for a president to be wasting his time on this?

Not at all.....   He's still an American Citizen first & foremost, with all the Rights that go with it..... ;)

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:

Not at all..... . He's still an American Citizen, with all the Rights that go with it.....

He is now President, first and foremost, and his duties as president supersede any rights he may have had as a private citizen.

Should he be allowed to tweet national secrets because he has a constitutional right to freedom of speech?  :D :D :D :D

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not? To "them", the dummy-spitting leftards worldwide, I simply say......tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk girls.... Get used to it. The President retains his Right to Free Speech guaranteed to All American Citizens, just now more people listen & more people will react.........it only gets sweeter from here!  http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif WOuld you agree though that regardless of the legalities, it's a poor look for a president to be wasting his time on this? Not at all.....   He's still an American Citizen first & foremost, with all the Rights that go with it..... ;)

SO in other words, he should be allowed to tweet the nuclear codes because he has a right to free speech.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

None whatsoever! Wink

I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless.

you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D

these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:

these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this.

So conflicts of interest, fraud, criminal acts are OK, as long as we get social justice out of the classroom. Nice.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:27pm: None whatsoever! Wink I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless. you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D

@All Leftards including DonkeyBoy & Smitty......  Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please..

This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:27pm: None whatsoever! Wink I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless. you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please.. This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D

I'll produce the same amount of evidence you have for Orwell giving that quote.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:48pm: these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this. So conflicts of interest, fraud, criminal acts are OK, as long as we get social justice out of the classroom. Nice.

yep. the left never played by any joint rules, so why should the right?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:48pm: these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this. So conflicts of interest, fraud, criminal acts are OK, as long as we get social justice out of the classroom. Nice. yep. the left never played by any joint rules, so why should the right?

Lol, oh wait you're serious

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

@All Leftards including DonkeyBoy & Smitty......  Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please.. This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D

;)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:27pm: None whatsoever! Wink I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless. you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please.. This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D I'll produce the same amount of evidence you have for Orwell giving that quote.

You have nothing.....You're saying .....Trump hasn't broken any laws or relinquished any of his Constitutional Rights, & the only thing you have is your DonkeyBoy ability to swerve & sidestep any issue your caught red handed with by using an "OFF TOPIC" argument I won ages ago.....you're tasking a page out of Gweegy's book.....the ones I cant see 'cause he's on ignore ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:06pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:27pm: None whatsoever! Wink I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless. you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please.. This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D I'll produce the same amount of evidence you have for Orwell giving that quote. You have nothing.....You're saying .....Trump hasn't broken any laws or relinquished any of his Constitutional Rights, & the only thing you have is your DonkeyBoy ability to swerve & sidestep using an "OFF TOPIC" argument I won ages ago.....you're tasking a page out of Gweegy's book.....the ones I cant see 'cause he's on ignore ;D

;)

;D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:01pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:48pm: these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this. So conflicts of interest, fraud, criminal acts are OK, as long as we get social justice out of the classroom. Nice. yep. the left never played by any joint rules, so why should the right? Lol, oh wait you're serious

f**kin' oath.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:02pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:01pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:48pm: these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this. So conflicts of interest, fraud, criminal acts are OK, as long as we get social justice out of the classroom. Nice. yep. the left never played by any joint rules, so why should the right? Lol, oh wait you're serious f**kin' oath.

Essentially because its been tit for tat for decades. Hard to distinguish who started it anymore. Both sides equally bad. Sad!

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:09pm:

;D

Well you know, the irony of you asking us for citations. Strong!

@Smitty....  BTW...... I don't do guilt, so you can never shame me, even over something so trivial as Trump exercising his Right to Free Speech, which BTW I don't only agree with him using it, I applaud him......anything that gets up the Left's craw is divine comedy!!   ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:15pm:

@Smitty....  BTW...... I don't do guilt, so you can never shame me, even over something so trivial as Trump exercising his Right to Free Speech, which BTW I don't only agree with him using it, I applaud him......anything that gets up the Left's craw is divine comedy!!   ;D ;D ;D

Not shaming you, just pointing out the irony in asking me to provide evidence. Personally I don't think some hick from Bumbugger Victoria is capable of shame.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:19pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:15pm: @Smitty....  BTW...... I don't do guilt, so you can never shame me, even over something so trivial as Trump exercising his Right to Free Speech, which BTW I don't only agree with him using it, I applaud him......anything that gets up the Left's craw is divine comedy!!   ;D ;D ;D Not shaming you, just pointing out the irony in asking me to provide evidence. Personally I don't think some hick from Bumbugger Victoria is capable of shame.

Ahhhh.....got to hand it to ya DonkeyBoy, you listened for once.....you got the State Right!  ;D ;D ;D

As far as when I ask the left for evidence, which they never have, they never provide a good lie even, to date I can't remember ever seeing any evidence from the left.......see Smitty's still wallowing in his swill.....he won't provide any......just watch......neither will any of your other compatriots there DonkeyBoy......neither will the others.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:21pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:19pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:15pm: @Smitty....  BTW...... I don't do guilt, so you can never shame me, even over something so trivial as Trump exercising his Right to Free Speech, which BTW I don't only agree with him using it, I applaud him......anything that gets up the Left's craw is divine comedy!!   ;D ;D ;D Not shaming you, just pointing out the irony in asking me to provide evidence. Personally I don't think some hick from Bumbugger Victoria is capable of shame. Ahhhh.....got to hand it to ya DonkeyBoy, you listened for once.....you got the State Right!  ;D ;D ;D

Well you know, when its not the ACT anywhere is Bumbugger.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:22pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:21pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:19pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:15pm: @Smitty....  BTW...... I don't do guilt, so you can never shame me, even over something so trivial as Trump exercising his Right to Free Speech, which BTW I don't only agree with him using it, I applaud him......anything that gets up the Left's craw is divine comedy!!   ;D ;D ;D As far as when I ask the left for evidence, which they never have, they never provide a good lie even, to date I can't remember ever seeing any evidence from the left.......see Smitty's still wallowing in his swill.....he won't provide any......just watch......neither will any of your other compatriots there DonkeyBoy......neither will the others. Not shaming you, just pointing out the irony in asking me to provide evidence. Personally I don't think some hick from Bumbugger Victoria is capable of shame. Ahhhh.....got to hand it to ya DonkeyBoy, you listened for once.....you got the State Right!  ;D ;D ;D Well you know, when its not the ACT anywhere is Bumbugger.

;D ;D ;D   

Ahhh, the ACT, I was on my way to Sydney.....taking the scenic route (I was lost).....I remember taking a great hellacious SH!T in the ACT along the way.....clean rooms....very tidy!   ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:27pm: None whatsoever! Wink I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless. you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D @All Leftards including DonkeyBoy & Smitty......  Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please.. This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D

for starters, he retains his business interests.


let the excuses begin

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not? To "them", the dummy-spitting leftards worldwide, I simply say......tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk girls.... Get used to it. The President retains his Right to Free Speech guaranteed to All American Citizens, just now more people listen & more people will react.........it only gets sweeter from here!  http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif WOuld you agree though that regardless of the legalities, it's a poor look for a president to be wasting his time on this?

But not unexpected of a small minded petty tyrant.. it seems like he has been in office 3 years instead of three weeks,...his stupid just keeps coming and coming, just keeps rolling on in-

Kelly Anne ConJOB is definitely not being the support to Trump that she thinks she is-quite the opposite AND she looks like like a 2 bit bimbo errgh.

Agnes wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:35pm:

Kelly Anne ConJOB is definitely not being the support to Trump that she thinks she is-quite the opposite AND she looks like like a 2 bit bimbo errgh.

One bit.


http://liberalplug.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Untitled-26.png

she's out of your league, pecca. if it wasn't for pro's you'd never get laid.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:34pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:27pm: None whatsoever! Wink I'm not surprised ... you retards are shameless. you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D @All Leftards including DonkeyBoy & Smitty......  Citation(s) please.....specific laws broken by Trump.....Freedoms relinquished by Trump the moment he took his oath of office.....what are they.....Citation(s) please.. This is gunna be good!  ;D ;D ;D for starters, he retains his business interests. let the excuses begin

That's a non-starter PiggyBoy....

Specifics......I requested specifics, not generalities from regurgitated leftist "Talking Points"

What specific Law(s) has President Trump broken, not what gweggy might have told you to say....think fer yerself PiggyBoy....think fer yerself.....dig deep. ;)

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. [size=11][font=Georgia][i]I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not?

Who decided? The law did panther.

Under US law, the President does *NOT* have freedom of speech when speaking officially as the US president. In this case - using the official presidential twitter handle:


Quote:

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, government officials cannot use their public office "for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise." The law further states that officials cannot use their position to give the appearance that the government "sanctions or endorses" the activities of a private party.

Trump gave the appearance of both sanctioning and endorsing 'the activities of a private party' - firstly endorsing his daughter's brand, and secondly sanctioning Nordstrom.

but none of this would have applied if he simply kept his comments under his private twitter account:


Quote:

According to Clark, this initial tweet was not an ethical violation. The law ensures that government employees are afforded the right to act as private citizens. "It's absolutely critical that government officials, in general, make communications in their personal capacity," she explains. "And that the government not be able to shut down or gag government employees by prohibiting them from speaking on their own behalf." But all of that changed when the official @POTUS account retweeted Trump's original tweet, because suddenly the official weight of the government was behind Trump's criticism of Nordstrom's decision to drop Ivanka's products. "The @POTUS handle is seen as government property," Clark says. "It's an official government organ."

https://www.fastcompany.com/3068034/why-trumps-nordstrom-tweet-may-have-crossed-an-ethical-line

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Specifics......I requested specifics, not generalities from regurgitated leftist "Talking Points"

yeah ... cause I've got nothing better to do than troll US legislation for your sake  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:34pm:

......you cry for months that hillary broke the law because she used a private email server, and then come up with the most pathetic excuses possible  when trump breaks laws :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 1:40pm: Specifics......I requested specifics, not generalities from regurgitated leftist "Talking Points" yeah ... cause I've got nothing better to do than troll US legislation for your sake  :D :D :D

Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?.....No need to answer, I know the answer, & you haven't a clue if it was illegal or not, so your answer would/should have been........NO, I have no freeking clue.......I thought not.....nothing new.

See, & I didn't even call you a MF'ing, split tongued liar....did I.....I can be nice too when I wanna be.    :-*    ;D

PS.....I already had the legal answer, but I'll just keep that for my personal use in the future when & if I need to reference it.....until then, what I know stays with me...unless I, & only I choose to share it..........that is unless you got nothing better to do than troll US legislation & accidentally stumble across it  ;) http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/biglaugh023.gif

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. [size=11][font=Georgia][i]I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not? Who decided? The law did panther. Under US law, the President does *NOT* have freedom of speech when speaking officially as the US president. In this case - using the official presidential twitter handle: Quote: According to the Code of Federal Regulations, government officials cannot use their public office "for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise." The law further states that officials cannot use their position to give the appearance that the government "sanctions or endorses" the activities of a private party. Trump gave the appearance of both sanctioning and endorsing 'the activities of a private party' - firstly endorsing his daughter's brand, and secondly sanctioning Nordstrom. but none of this would have applied if he simply kept his comments under his private twitter account: [quote]According to Clark, this initial tweet was not an ethical violation. The law ensures that government employees are afforded the right to act as private citizens. "It's absolutely critical that government officials, in general, make communications in their personal capacity," she explains. "And that the government not be able to shut down or gag government employees by prohibiting them from speaking on their own behalf." But all of that changed when the official @POTUS account retweeted Trump's original tweet, because suddenly the official weight of the government was behind Trump's criticism of Nordstrom's decision to drop Ivanka's products. "The @POTUS handle is seen as government property," Clark says. "It's an official government organ."

https://www.fastcompany.com/3068034/why-trumps-nordstrom-tweet-may-have-crossed-an-ethical-line

[/quote]

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 2:38pm:

Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?...

sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read.

Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist?

@gandalf....
That wreaks of 3^rd party, no?

Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?

That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;)

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist?

Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!!

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:55am: who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter. I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Who gave "them" the right to decide who has the Right to the Freedom of Speech, & who does not? To "them", the dummy-spitting leftards worldwide, I simply say......tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk girls.... Get used to it. The President retains his Right to Free Speech guaranteed to All American Citizens, just now more people listen & more people will react.........it only gets sweeter from here!  http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif WOuld you agree though that regardless of the legalities, it's a poor look for a president to be wasting his time on this? Not at all.....   He's still an American Citizen first & foremost, with all the Rights that go with it..... ;)

You really dont know the difference between rights and responsibilities. Next you will defend his 'right'  to screw underage girls. And I am serious. you WOULD defend that.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!!

what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument?

if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk

It would appear that Kellyanne Conway has violated the federal ethics rules regarding her "free commercial" of Ivanka's line.

The rules state that an employee of the government’s executive branch cannot use public office for personal gain or to endorse products or services on behalf of friends or relatives. Legal experts said Ms. Conway, whose title is counselor to the president, appeared to have violated that and possibly other conflict-of-interest rules, which do not apply to the president and vice president, but do apply to their staffs.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!! what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument? if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk

In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses.

The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence.

If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty.

No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict.

The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case.

So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech.

That Simple.

That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe.

yes, i would have avoided answering that too if I was you

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

yes, i would have avoided answering that too if I was you

Why answer to anything, that need not be proven.....

Innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of his peers...........The US House of Representatives to refer (218 of 435), & the US Senate, who actually tries the case, the Court of Law, & it is they that decides guilt or no (67 of 100). A Super Majority.

blah blah blah .... i notice even trump hasn't used you right to freedom of speech excuse 

and he loves pathetic excuses  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

blah blah blah .... i notice even trump hasn't used you right to freedom of speech excuse  and he loves pathetic excuses  :D :D :D

Why answer to anything, that need not be proven.....

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:56pm: blah blah blah .... i notice even trump hasn't used you right to freedom of speech excuse  and he loves pathetic excuses  :D :D :D Why answer to anything, that need not be proven.....

I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:58pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:56pm: blah blah blah .... i notice even trump hasn't used you right to freedom of speech excuse  and he loves pathetic excuses  :D :D :D Why answer to anything, that need not be proven..... I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached.

Quote:

Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is no law stating the President has to relinquish his Right to the Freedom of Speech, or any part thereof.....

Congress is forbidden from making any such law.....period

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:58pm: I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached.

Yes, believe in your dreams......for within them they are true to you......

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 6:05pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:58pm: I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached. Yes, believe in your dreams......for within them they are true to you......

says the guy dreaming that trump will make a good president despite all the evidence to date being to the contrary  ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 4:11pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!! what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument? if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses. The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence. If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty. No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict. The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case. So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech. That Simple. That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe.

you really really dont know a thing about law other than what you can google. That post is largely hypothetical nonsense.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 4:11pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!! what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument? if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses. The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence. If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty. No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict. The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case. So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech. That Simple. That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe.

Try yelling 'fire' in a cinema or 'hijack' in a plane and see how your 'freedom of speech' argument works.

imbecile.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:23pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 4:11pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!! what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument? if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses. The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence. If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty. No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict. The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case. So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech. That Simple. That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe. you really really dont know a thing about law other than what you can google. That post is largely hypothetical nonsense.

Really......what is hypothetical outside of the simple example I portrayed?

I'm not a lawyer, & I represent no one in any court of law.

The legal issues & procedures within that example are firmly entrenched in the American legal system...

Fact: A defendant is never required to testify at trial in any Criminal Prosecution, or required to answerer any question outside of how he/she pleads.....innocent or guilty....... & only when asked by a Judge prior to any trial.

The same holds true in interrogations by law enforcement prior to any potential charge. They can refuse to answer any & all questions. Read the 9^th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Fact: The prosecution (the State) has the total & complete burden of proof.

Fact: A defendant never has to prove his/her innocence in any Criminal Prosecution.

Fact: A Judge presides over a Criminal Trial, not to determine guilt or innocence, that is the jury's charge, but to ensure the defendant (not the prosecution) gets a fair & unbiased trial according to the law.

I dare you to prove any of the preceding  Facts  incorrect

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;)[/i][/font][/size]

Thats about the silliest thing I've heard all day - and thats something because I've been dealing with freediver's inane circus act too.

Do you think the President has "freedom" to say leak state secrets to the Russians? give out the nuclear codes? You really didn't put too much thought into that panther.

But as to the specific topic, all government employees, which includes the President, have statutary limitations on their speech - including the previously mentioned prohibition of giving the appearance of either endorsing or sanctioning "the activities of a private party".

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 6:12pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:23pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 4:11pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!! what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument? if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses. The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence. If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty. No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict. The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case. So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech. That Simple. That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe. you really really dont know a thing about law other than what you can google. That post is largely hypothetical nonsense. Really......what is hypothetical outside of the simple example I portrayed? I'm not a lawyer, & I represent no one in any court of law. The legal issues & procedures within that example are firmly entrenched in the American legal system... Fact: A defendant is never required to testify at trial in any Criminal Prosecution, or required to answerer any question outside of how he/she pleads.....innocent or guilty....... & only when asked by a Judge prior to any trial. The same holds true in interrogations by law enforcement prior to any potential charge. They can refuse to answer any & all questions. Read the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. Fact: The prosecution (the State) has the total & complete burden of proof. Fact: A defendant never has to prove his/her innocence in any Criminal Prosecution. Fact: A Judge presides over a Criminal Trial, not to determine guilt or innocence, that is the jury's charge, but to ensure the defendant (not the prosecution) gets a fair & unbiased trial according to the law. I dare you to prove any of the preceding  Facts  incorrect

seriously, dimwit... do you think you just replaced 5 years of law school with a single post?  It is never as simple as you seem to think otherwise a court could be replaced by a computer program.

Your ignorance of the process of law enforcement is gobsmackingly naive.

Quote:

surely not even the fanboys can defend this...

No Bet.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;)[/i][/font][/size] Thats about the silliest thing I've heard all day - and thats something because I've been dealing with freediver's inane circus act too. Do you think the President has "freedom" to say leak state secrets to the Russians? give out the nuclear codes? You really didn't put too much thought into that panther. But as to the specific topic, all government employees, which includes the President, have statutary limitations on their speech - including the previously mentioned prohibition of giving the appearance of either endorsing or sanctioning "the activities of a private party".

That he doesnt understand that is an indictment of his intelligence - just as it is of Trump himself.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 6:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 6:12pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 5:23pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 4:11pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:33pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 2:38pm: Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?... sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read. Are you seriously going to pretend the  Emoluments Clause doesn't exist? Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!! what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument? if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses. The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence. If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty. No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict. The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case. So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech. That Simple. That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe. you really really dont know a thing about law other than what you can google. That post is largely hypothetical nonsense. Really......what is hypothetical outside of the simple example I portrayed? I'm not a lawyer, & I represent no one in any court of law. The legal issues & procedures within that example are firmly entrenched in the American legal system... Fact: A defendant is never required to testify at trial in any Criminal Prosecution, or required to answerer any question outside of how he/she pleads.....innocent or guilty....... & only when asked by a Judge prior to any trial. The same holds true in interrogations by law enforcement prior to any potential charge. They can refuse to answer any & all questions. Read the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. Fact: The prosecution (the State) has the total & complete burden of proof. Fact: A defendant never has to prove his/her innocence in any Criminal Prosecution. Fact: A Judge presides over a Criminal Trial, not to determine guilt or innocence, that is the jury's charge, but to ensure the defendant (not the prosecution) gets a fair & unbiased trial according to the law. I dare you to prove any of the preceding  Facts  incorrect seriously, dimwit... do you think you just replaced 5 years of law school with a single post?  It is never as simple as you seem to think otherwise a court could be replaced by a computer program. Your ignorance of the process of law enforcement is gobsmackingly naive.

Your total ignorance with the American System of Justice, & the US Constitution is extremely evident whenever you open your pie-hole.

You can't refute any FACT......None.....White Flag Accepted.

Go in Peace.....Stay ignorant, it becomes you....Console John in his dreams, for you too are just a dreamer.
  ;D ;D ;D

panther will cry for a month when trump is impeached .....  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:

panther will cry for a month when trump is impeached .....  ;D ;D ;D

Indeed, he will.

Imagine what he'll do when Trump is dead.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

@gandalf.... That wreaks of 3rd party, no? Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet? That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely. Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;)

I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too?

I'm curious.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision. Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has. But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS. Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here?

Trump jumped to the defense of his daughter because she was being punished for who her father is. Considering the job he now holds he needs to be more diplomatic in his responses. This chicken shlt action by Nordstroms deserves the same type of boycott other outwardly liberal businesses get. The Target chain saw their Stock price drop after they announced "open rest rooms for all". When a business takes strong political stands they open themselves up to backlash!

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:35pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:44am: Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision. Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has. But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS. Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here? Trump jumped to the defense of his daughter because she was being punished for who her father is. Considering the job he now holds he needs to be more diplomatic in his responses. This chicken shlt action by Nordstroms deserves the same type of boycott other outwardly liberal businesses get. The Target chain saw their Stock price drop after they announced "open rest rooms for all". When a business takes strong political stands they open themselves up to backlash!

The fan boys still around are they../?

Who cares about his daughter..and pp are allowed to protest in anyway they see fit..her clothing line was ripped off cheap and nasty made in china crap anyway and was failing before the old creep was made chief, apparently been dumped by another chain today..he should be sacked anyway..the Trumps are on the nose and it will only get worse.

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:35pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 11:44am: Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision. Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has. But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS. Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here? Trump jumped to the defense of his daughter because she was being punished for who her father is. Considering the job he now holds he needs to be more diplomatic in his responses. This chicken shlt action by Nordstroms deserves the same type of boycott other outwardly liberal businesses get. The Target chain saw their Stock price drop after they announced "open rest rooms for all". When a business takes strong political stands they open themselves up to backlash!

Really??

And here Raven was, thinking they dropped it because it wasn't selling.

How dare a company do that, just because sales have dropped dramatically over the last year, it doesn't give them the right to exercise their discretion on whether or not they keep selling the First Daughter's clothes.

No doubt luxury retailer Neiman Marcus Group are also punishing Ivanka when they stopped selling her jewellery line

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:35pm:

Trump jumped to the defense of his daughter because she was being punished for who her father is

nothing to do with the lack of sales, right?  :D :D :D

Two companies dropped two Trump lines because of commercial-only decisions. Surely as an alleged businessman he would understand the reasons behind such things.

Who are we kidding... this is Trump the Narcissist.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:

panther will cry for a month when trump is impeached .....  ;D ;D ;D

No the conservative are all very happy to eat their own. Remember how they all celebrated when Abbott overthrew Turnbull ? They spent 2 years calling Turnbull every name in the book and now they all love him again?

Do you really think that they wont celebrate his demise again.

They will see Trumps demise as a huge relief, they do in reality know what a disaster he is.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:46pm: @gandalf.... That wreaks of 3rd party, no? Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet? That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely. Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;) I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too? I'm curious.

IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

Much???

On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.

In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "Jury Nullification".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.

Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government. ;)

The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.

Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.  :-/

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him.

Wow...

Trump was right, he really could just shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care.

Despite what his many devotee seem to think, he is not above the law.  Yes, he does enjoy some exemptions from the ethics rules as do many Senators and Congressmen so as to not impede their official duties because of conflicts of interest with their personal/professional lives, but he is still not above the law.

At the end of the day, he's only doing what everyone other than the so desperately gullible people thought he would.  Big surprise he only has his own interests in mind.

What about Trump's personal email server?

SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 12:20pm: I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him. Wow... Trump was right, he really could just shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care. Despite what his many devotee seem to think, he is not above the law.  Yes, he does enjoy some exemptions from the ethics rules as do many Senators and Congressmen so as to not impede their official duties because of conflicts of interest with their personal/professional lives, but he is still not above the law. At the end of the day, he's only doing what everyone other than the so desperately gullible people thought he would.  Big surprise he only has his own interests in mind.

the trumpoids wont criticise him over ANYTHInG

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Big Donger wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 10:48pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:46pm: @gandalf.... That wreaks of 3rd party, no? Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet? That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely. Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;) I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too? I'm curious. IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance.... Much??? On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence. In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence, it is called "Jury Nullification".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law. Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government. ;) The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice. Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.  :-/

Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther?

Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.

It's in your constitution, yes?

Big Donger wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: Big Donger wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 10:48pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:46pm: @gandalf.... That wreaks of 3rd party, no? Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet? That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely. Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;) I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too? I'm curious. IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance.... Much??? On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence. In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence, it is called "Jury Nullification".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law. Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government. ;) The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice. Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.  :-/ Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther? Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people. It's in your constitution, yes?

I dont think you will find that line of logic will get anywhere. Panther is absolutely convinced that Trump has the unfettered right to do absolutely anything he wishes at any time.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: Big Donger wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 10:48pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:46pm: @gandalf.... That wreaks of 3rd party, no? Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet? That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely. Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;) I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too? I'm curious. IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance.... Much??? On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence. In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence, it is called "Jury Nullification".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law. Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government. ;) The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice. Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.  :-/ Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther? Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people. It's in your constitution, yes?

As an employee of the People, as Sec. of State, she had the responsibility of protecting Classified information, work product that does not belong to her personally, nor ever belonged to her personally, from people who may have motives not in the best interests of America, & its People (her employers), from accessing that Classified Information.

This never was about her personal emails, say to her daughter, or her husband, to her Uncle Fred.

This was always about how she stored, & where she stored Classified Information vital to National Security, subjecting these materials, & her work product, to the peering eyes of anyone able to break into her unsecured server(s).....to the detriment of the American People & her Government.

Clinton chose not only to disregard that responsibility, but decided to co-mingle her personal correspondence with her Work Product & Classified Correspondence, in a flagrant display of indifference, even though she was, by her own Congressional testimony & eventual admission, she was completely aware that it was inappropriate to do so. Her reasoning that years before her that it was done by  another Secretary of State, but later admitted that she was aware that subsequently, new laws had since been put in place to guard against using "Personal Servers" which may lead to housing Classified Information insecurely & illegally.

Now, any of her personal correspondence, not related to her duties as Secretary of State would be perfectly fine on the server she decided to use, but by law she was aware she needed to keep America's Classified Information, & all her work product, separate, & secure on government servers.

It's not, & never was a Freedom of Speech issue.....& for the life of me, I can not honestly understand how anyone in their right minds can confuse her activity, with how President Trump spoke freely about what he did, & as he did on Twitter.

It's like comparing his using a strong mouth wash, with her using caustic drain cleaner, both with different end results.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Big Donger wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 1:12pm: Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: Big Donger wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 10:48pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 3:46pm: @gandalf.... That wreaks of 3rd party, no? Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet? That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely. Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort.  Tnx... ;) I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too? I'm curious. IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance.... Much??? On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence. In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence, it is called "Jury Nullification".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law. Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government. ;) The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice. Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.  :-/ Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther? Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people. It's in your constitution, yes? I dont think you will find that line of logic will get anywhere. Panther is absolutely convinced that Trump has the unfettered right to do absolutely anything he wishes at any time.

The pursuit of happiness, eh?

Good point. It's in the constitution.

But Panther. Two FBI enquiries said she didn't do any of those things.

Trump is using his POTUS Twitter account to conduct private business and vandettas.

Is this allowed in your constitution?

Big Donger wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:

But Panther. Two FBI enquiries said she didn't do any of those things. Trump is using his POTUS Twitter account to conduct private business and vandettas. Is this allowed in your constitution?

I don't know if there is anything in our Australian Constitution covering that, but so far in the US Constitution I can't find anywhere it's expressly not permitted?......Can you?   If so, specifically where?

BTW....can you link to those specific tweets, you know, precisely where he is, as you claim, he is actually conducting "Private Business" &/or Personal "Vendettas", if they exist, which as of late you can understand me having some "minor" doubts as to their existence?

Hey, I'm sure most everyone would like to see them.......find them & post them here for us all to peruse. Thanks ;)

I'm just astonished how so many thing that made Clinton utterly unelectable and the most corrupt and dishonest politician ever are not only acceptable but defending when they are actions Trump takes.

Clearly those are not the reasons to vote against Clinton or not support her, something else must be at play.

At the same time, the moment Trump took the oath people were claiming he'd already made America great again.  He did nothing at that point.

Again, something else must be at play.

I know what it looks like from the outside observer, but it can't really be that simple, can it?

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:58pm:

BTW....can you link to those specific tweets, you know, precisely where he is, as you claim, he is actually conducting "Private Business" &/or Personal "Vendettas", if they exist, which as of late you can understand me having some "minor" doubts as to their existence? Hey, I'm sure most everyone would like to see them.......find them & post them here for us all to peruse. Thanks ;)

Trump is certainly using his @realDonalTrump to carry out personal vendettas.

Everything he says about SNL

Nordstrom

CNN

Senator McCain

A Federal Court Judge

The Courts

NY Times

Arnold  Schwarzenegger

The voting system

No doubt Raven has forgotten some but this is just a few the thin skinned narcissist can't help but attack

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:58pm:

Big Donger wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:41pm: But Panther. Two FBI enquiries said she didn't do any of those things. Trump is using his POTUS Twitter account to conduct private business and vandettas. Is this allowed in your constitution? I don't know if there is anything in our Australian Constitution covering that, but so far in the US Constitution I can't find anywhere it's expressly not permitted?......Can you?   If so, specifically where? BTW....can you link to those specific tweets, you know, precisely where he is, as you claim, he is actually conducting "Private Business" &/or Personal "Vendettas", if they exist, which as of late you can understand me having some "minor" doubts as to their existence? Hey, I'm sure most everyone would like to see them.......find them & post them here for us all to peruse. Thanks ;)

Good heavens, you're not an Amerikan?

Quote:

surely not even the fanboys can defend this...

We now have 6 pages of them doing just that.

SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:

I'm just astonished how so many thing that made Clinton utterly unelectable and the most corrupt and dishonest politician ever are not only acceptable but defending when they are actions Trump takes. Clearly those are not the reasons to vote against Clinton or not support her, something else must be at play. At the same time, the moment Trump took the oath people were claiming he'd already made America great again.  He did nothing at that point. Again, something else must be at play. I know what it looks like from the outside observer, but it can't really be that simple, can it?

people will ignore imperfections if they feel their leader (in whatever context you want to put them) are addressing their concerns. obama supporters overlooked, or didn't care, that obama was supporting rebels and bombings in foreign countries. how many deaths due to obama and clinton meddling, a few thousand? in short, that was a small price to pay for the 'diversity' paradise at home.

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

[size=11][font=Georgia][i]IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

You do realise that the previous politicians they checked - the two previous Secretary of state had both effectively done the same thing. They were frightened to investigate the rest of the US politicians because they knew what they were going to find.

They very likely had all breached email security regulations. - all of them.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance.... You do realise that the previous politicians they checked - the two previous Secretary of state had both effectively done the same thing.........

Glad you didn't research on this one either Daffy!

Did you know that the law changed before SHillary Clinton became Secretart of State?

Why?

Could it be that when something is broke, sometimes they try to fix it......in this case for National Security Reasons?

JFYI, the laws were changed, & not only that, Clinton knew it, & ignored it completely, only to later deny knowing it, & to then later on admit she knew, but like you saw nothing wrong with it because others did it before her......unfortunately she had already admitted to knowing the laws were changed......so

So....Not effectively the same thing...



Source:      Panther        
Quote:

As an employee of the People, as Sec. of State, she had the responsibility of protecting Classified information, work product that does not belong to her personally, nor ever belonged to her personally, from people who may have motives not in the best interests of America, & its People (her employers), from accessing that Classified Information. This never was about her personal emails, say to her daughter, or her husband, to her Uncle Fred. This was always about how she stored, & where she stored Classified Information vital to National Security, subjecting these materials, & her work product, to the peering eyes of anyone able to break into her unsecured server(s).....to the detriment of the American People & her Government. Clinton chose not only to disregard that responsibility, but decided to co-mingle her personal correspondence with her Work Product & Classified Correspondence, in a flagrant display of indifference, even though she was, by her own Congressional testimony & eventual admission, she was completely aware that it was inappropriate to do so. Her reasoning that years before her that it was done by  another Secretary of State, but later admitted that she was aware that subsequently, new laws had since been put in place to guard against using "Personal Servers" which may lead to housing Classified Information insecurely & illegally. Now, any of her personal correspondence, not related to her duties as Secretary of State would be perfectly fine on the server she decided to use, but by law she was aware she needed to keep America's Classified Information, & all her work product, separate, & secure on government servers. It's not, & never was a Freedom of Speech issue.....& for the life of me, I can not honestly understand how anyone in their right minds can confuse her activity, with how President Trump spoke freely about what he did, & as he did on Twitter. It's like comparing his using a strong mouth wash, with her using caustic drain cleaner, both with different end results.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:23am: [size=11][font=Georgia][i]IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance.... You do realise that the previous politicians they checked - the two previous Secretary of state had both effectively done the same thing. They were frightened to investigate the rest of the US politicians because they knew what they were going to find. They very likely had all breached email security regulations. - all of them.

This just Black Panther thinking that he has a grip on US consitutional law. He has a grip alright... and his is usually engaged in 'gripping' when he posts.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

'gripping' now, right?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 6:08pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 'gripping' now, right?

No, that's your M.O., I was just wondering how the caught out lil leftist girlie I intellectually bitch-slapped recently was doing.....& here you are she is....recover from your intellectual bitch-slapping yet, or just back for more???   ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 6:10pm: Panther wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 6:08pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 'gripping' now, right? No, that's your M.O., I was just wondering how the caught out lil leftist girlie I intellectually bitch-slapped recently was doing.....& here you are she is....recover from your intellectual bitch-slapping yet, or just back for more???   ;D ;D ;D

you've never bitch slapped anyone. Your blatant racism and ignorance prevents you from making any dent in anyones arguments.