BritsKate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 4,835
RBBMDonald Trump Addresses Wife Melania’s Absence from Campaign Trail: ‘I Like to Keep Her Away from It’
During a preview of his upcoming interview on 'Meet the Press,' former President Donald Trump told Kristen Welker that it's been his decision not to bring wife Melania Trump on the campaign trail.people.com
Sure, Donald. Keep telling yourself that.
IMO she finds him disgusting and as has been speculated everywhere, she’s in this for her own personal reasons. And he was good-looking when he was younger so maybe she found him tolerable then.
Not sure which Trump thread this should be in but I suppose it’s applicable to all.
I have that problem a lot - a general comment about Trump and no clue which thread to put it in.
----------------
Jeffrey Clark filed his motion for removal. (I miss the devil emoji at moments like this.) The President of the United States is King, ya'll. And Jeffrey Clark says his case should be removed to Federal Court because he says so.
That's the entitlement I'm seeing in these motions I keep talking about. It's his burden to prove the crimes he is charged with were committed while he was acting under the color of his office. The Court doesn't have to take him at his word as he seems to infer. (Meadows tried this same tack and melted under cross.)Instead, the Court must credit Mr. Clark’s theory of the case that he was acting under the color of his office.
Now, I am not a lawyer but my thinking is that if the President of the United States can't break the law, he also can't 'order' someone else to do so and they somehow get magical immunity because the President gave them, at least, tacit permission. Especially seeing as Mr. Clark's immediate superiors warned him against proceeding.The significant point about this meeting for removal purposes is that the President discussed the letter and election topics directly with Mr. Clark, and directly sought his opinions and advice, along with that of all others present. The President has the unqualified and illimitable right to seek and obtain such advice from his senior legal advisors. This act by the President conclusively ratified that Mr. Clark’s responsibilities included the election-related issues discussed in the draft letter, and that all of his charged conduct was under color of lawIt simply does not matter for purposes of removal that Mr. Rosen or Mr. Donoghue or the others in the meeting with the President were opposed to the letter, nor how vehemently they were opposed. The color-of-law test does not turn on such questions. The Constitution gives the President the ultimate authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” not those other officials.
And don't think the prosecutor won't be asking Mr. Clark about the Attorney General gig Trump promised him. That's looking a whole lot like a potential bribe. JMO
ETA: And for people who don't know - the DOJ plays no role in the tabulation of votes anyway but in addition to that - Clark was an ENVIRONMENTAL lawyer!
JEFFREY B. CLARK’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL
Last edited: