What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

TheStormofWar said:
No, you didn't. You tried that thing I mentioned with the bu.edu link, which was wrong in the first sentence. Then you tried to cite it again. Again, we're through. Have a good day.
Click to expand...
"You can't have an intelligent conversation"

Runs away just like the fascist always do. You know more than a judge and Boston College law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
TheStormofWar said:
... You know what, I have neither amount of the time nor crayons to explain to how the arrest warrant process works.
Click to expand...
Only an idiot would read this post and find anger in it.
Just annoyance. Which is the tone of every post by every poster who has ever discussed anything with that troll.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Only an idiot would read this post and find anger in it.
Just annoyance. Which is the tone of every post by every poster who has ever discussed anything with that troll.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's anger fish... Don't patronize me.

But I would loooove someone to explain why they think its ok that an AG that was very close to Obama that Biden anointed can choose a special council to arrest political opponents. You've been bitching all week that Trump is going to arrest political opponents now you are pissed, angry, that Biden can't do the exact same thing. This requires congress approval. I posted the exact statute that says this. This is not rocket science you fascist.

I mean my f* what is so hard to comprehend? What part of "subject to the advise of the CONSENT of the Senate" is hard for you to understand? No wonder why Republicans want to do away with the ducation department lol. I've tried to explain this to you but you always get "ANGRY" and run away because you can't debate. None of you can
The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.
 
How we doing boys sorted all this out yet?

I have a predictable case of insomnia brought on by an after breakfast meeting.
 
Rubashov said:
How we doing boys sorted all this out yet?

I have a predictable case of insomnia brought on by an after breakfast meeting.
Click to expand...
I mean it's blatantly obvious. A simple Google search.

The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
1000000953.png
 
D o people really not understand this? I'm actually baffled I'll admit it. It seems like common sense that if a Presidents AG, a guy the President put in that position, wants to criminally prosecute a political candidate, then congress should vote on who is running the show. This is obvious protection from a tyrant dictator like Biden and his naive followers.

If Trump wins he can't put his own AG in and have that AG hire a prosecutor to arrest Biden. That's not how the constitution works.
 
fishonjazz said:
Only an idiot would read this post and find anger in it.
Just annoyance. Which is the tone of every post by every poster who has ever discussed anything with that troll.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Pretty much this. I have no anger in this, just resignation that folks just will rehash talking points in some weird ePenial game. You can explain things, give specific examples, refute and give the exact reason why, they'll keep doing it. It's pretty much why I de-registered as a Republican in 2005. The GOP just became a bunch of know-nothings in search of a savior they found in Trump.
 
fishonjazz said:
Only an idiot would read this post and find anger in it.
Just annoyance. Which is the tone of every post by every poster who has ever discussed anything with that troll.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Smug, know it all, assholes.
 
TheStormofWar said:
Pretty much this. I have no anger in this, just resignation that folks just will rehash talking points in some weird ePenial game. You can explain things, give specific examples, refute and give the exact reason why, they'll keep doing it. It's pretty much why I de-registered as a Republican in 2005. The GOP just became a bunch of know-nothings in search of a savior they found in Trump.
Click to expand...
Lol I find it funny you used some wierd 1875 stat you just pulled out of your butt but you refused to follow the actual clause that's in place. You wouldn't even acknowledge it. It's a very simple constitutional clause. It's pretty damn straightforward.

The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
 
SteakNEggs said:
I mean it's blatantly obvious. A simple Google search.

The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
View attachment 16789
Click to expand...
You have some reading to do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top