Legal realism is that the Obama administration lawyers had no principles but winning at any cost.
Link: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/
when he accepted Russia's help. LMMFAO at anyone who would cite the opinion of this POS.
Link: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/opinions/turley-impeachment-flip-flop-avlon/index.html
(no message)
Standard workplace sexual harassment.
Excusing Bill's behavior is partially responsible for how we ended up with Trump. It was a turning point in American politics where we no longer cared about ethics and morals in our leadership.
He was impeached for lying about it in an unrelated civil deposition. The same type of lying that is being excused here right now on a daily basis with Flynn.
On the consent issue, you are entirely correct from the civil, sexual harassment standpoint. From the criminal side, there was valid consent. Why he wasn’t impeached for that or charged later.
The whole "lying to the FBI" thing needs to be reformed along with their interviewing tactics and methods.
If you're going to be outraged by the Flynn deal, you have to include everyone guilty of the same offense, like McCabe. In the case of McCabe even more so, they gave him an opportunity to correct his lie and he declined.
The point is though that most of these people now applauding Flynn wanted to impeach Clinton over much the same thing.
Many were also breathlessly predicting McCabe's indictment and were a bit upset when it didn’t happen.
There are applicable Supreme Court decisions governing the situation which appear to have been violated. Does that matter? If not, might we be open to abuse of civil rights by either side? Would that matter to you? Or does that only matter if it is against the left?
(no message)
I appreciate your admission that issue discussion is not your strong point. It will save me the time of actually paying any attention to your posts.
Good Times.
This will be ripped apart by the “experts” on here.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
That there are "experts" on this board, hardly. Maybe self-proclaimed experts but no real ones. There are plenty of people on here impressed with themselves.
(no message)
So yeah, he DID directly help him.
He is no longer an expert in his field? Is that how it works?
In other words, he has a dog in the hunt.
(no message)
But don’t try and say he was some neutral commentator here. He volunteered and specifically advocated for Orange’s defense team at the impeachment proceedings.
he was more concerned about the Dems abusing their power and protecting the Constitution rather than Trump. Trump just happened to be on the chopping block. He told them that they were abusing their power and that every President going forward would be Impeached for less.
a bj in a civil depo.
Those things are relevant in assessing his credibility.
(no message)
In response to your inquiry, how?
He wasn’t simply, a detached commentator.