And that’s the difference, I’m not saying these guys ain’t thorough, they are, but in their own way. I get so god damned mad over people like Tucker, because it’s so obvious that words will never do anything to him. He is a cockroach, after what JS did to him, how he sidetracked his career for a decade to the point of needing th3 rebrand on a new network, dudes like this need to catch hands. Dollar to donuts they never felt grown hands *pause* and were prolly bullied and had to run shyt to a person of color at a young age, and that’s why he hates them so much and has that wild talk over shyt, on some scorned gf shyt “I’ll never feel worthless and used again”.
RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
MR. Conclusion
All Star
Lol Fox has no shame.
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
If you're Mueller and you're convinced that Manafort won't flip on trump then there's no marginal utility to going after a 40 year sentence rather than a 20 year sentence. Both are essentially life sentences. It only takes one Magamaniac to fuk it up and end up with a mistrial. I would guess Mueller would want to avoid that kind of a spectacle.
Again my theory hinges on the chance that Manafort told him he would never flip. If that's changed then obviously the theory doesn't work - but I just don't see why he would've went through the hassle (and cost) of going to trial once and continuing the charade right up to the eve of another trial if he was open to cooperating.
resurrection
By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War
Tucker is repulsive. All he does is talk over his guests, interrupt and disrespect them. No different here. His whole “gotcha” moment was trying to press Avenatti on why he’s rich and his client works in strip clubs. She’s a porn star - she likes doing shyt like that
Tucker is a jokeOpinion | Michael Avenatti: The Case for Indicting the President
Michael Avenatti: The Case for Indicting the President
Justice Department lawyers have said a sitting president cannot be indicted. It’s time to test that proposition by bringing an indictment that can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Sept. 13, 2018
Please disable your ad blocker.
Advertising helps fund Times journalism.
By Michael Avenatti
Mr. Avenatti is the lawyer for Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Trump and his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Illustration by Jeffrey Henson Scales, photographs by Darrin Klimek/Digital Vision and Sirichoke/iStock, via Getty Images
Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, once famously remarked that grand juries were so easily swayed that they would “indict a ham sandwich” if a prosecutor requested it. Many times, there is truth to this. But an indictment does not end the process of determining guilt or innocence. It begins it.
Following indictment, criminal defendants can question the validity of the charges, the methods used to acquire the evidence and the evidence itself. They can seek to dismiss a criminal indictment and, if unsatisfied with the ruling, appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The grand jury system has been employed in hundreds of thousands of cases involving all manner of crimes committed by all manner of people. All, that is, except one: the president.
No grand jury has ever indicted a president, and consequently no court, let alone the Supreme Court, has ruled on the critical question of whether the Constitution allows a president to be indicted while in office. Legal scholars have opined on both sides of the issue, and Department of Justice attorneys have drafted memorandums arguing against indicting a sitting president. But none of these analyses establish definitive rules of law. It is time to clarify the issue.
Provided there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment of President Trump — and there are many indications that there is — the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, and prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, who are investigating payments to my client, Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal, should present their evidence to grand juries. Those jurors, citizens of our communities, should then determine whether the evidence supports an indictment of Mr. Trump.
The fact that Mr. Trump is a sitting president should not derail a process that applies to all Americans, regardless of stature or station. He would still have the post-indictment relief available to all citizens, including the ability to challenge the constitutionality of the indictment. Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country. But this is a White House already engulfed in chaos and daily distractions. And if the House were to initiate impeachment proceedings, it is hard to see how that process would be any less distracting than a criminal indictment.
Support for indicting a sitting president can be found in the Supreme Court’s 1997 unanimous decision in Clinton v. Jones, holding that a sitting president has no immunity from civil litigation in federal court from acts done before taking office and unrelated to duties as president. That decision later famously led to President Bill Clinton’s sworn deposition testimony, which in turn served as the basis for impeachment charges.
On the other side of the argument, Assistant Attorney General Randolph D. Moss wrote a memorandum opinion in 2000 analyzing the constitutionality of indicting a sitting president. This followed a 1973 analysis by Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Dixon Jr. that examined the same issue in connection with the Watergate scandal. Both concluded that the Constitution makes a sitting president immune from indictment.
But other constitutional scholars have reached the opposite conclusion. Ronald Rotunda, who was part of the Watergate investigative team and served as an adviser to Kenneth Starr when he was the independent counsel investigating President Clinton, concluded in 1998: “It is proper, constitutional and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.” Mr. Starr himself said this week that he believes the Constitution allows for the indictment of a sitting president.
But however well intentioned and instructive those memorandums and analyses might be, they do not begin to approach the weight of an actual Supreme Court decision. Our democracy and our belief in the rule of law for all, including presidents, should not rest on such a soft foundation.
Instead, if the facts and evidence are adequate for indictment, then prosecutors must be blind to the officeholder’s position — especially so in this case because, unlike in President Clinton’s case, the investigations relate to how Mr. Trump won the election. Ultimately, the question would almost certainly be decided by a panel of judges previously confirmed pursuant to the Constitution — either in the courts of appeals or, more appropriately, the Supreme Court.
Which brings us to the question of who on the Supreme Court should be allowed to review an indictment against the president. Last week, during his confirmation hearing, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to commit to recusing himself in the event he was confirmed and a case involving the investigation of Mr. Trump were to reach the Supreme Court. He took this position despite the fact that his strong views in favor of presidential immunity are outside the legal mainstream and he was chosen by Mr. Trump during known inquiries into the conduct of the president and his campaign. This is wrong.
Should Mr. Trump be indicted and in the event that the case reaches the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory. The American public’s view of impartiality of the rule of law and of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance.
Michael Avenatti is the lawyer for Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in her lawsuits against President Trump and his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Subscribe now. Just $15.99 $9.99 a month.
The Fukin Prophecy
RIP Champ
Avenatti made a poor decision going on that creepy bow-tie wearing closet fakkit Tucker Calrson show expecting him to honor any agreement...
That ignorant clown doesn't argue facts, he spits nonsense gotcha bullshyt, stares at you with a cerebral palsy look, laughs at his own corny jokes and constantly interrupts the guest...
He thrives on getting people emotional and he did that to Avenatti...
Dude needs to have his jaw rocked and wired shut...
That ignorant clown doesn't argue facts, he spits nonsense gotcha bullshyt, stares at you with a cerebral palsy look, laughs at his own corny jokes and constantly interrupts the guest...
He thrives on getting people emotional and he did that to Avenatti...
Dude needs to have his jaw rocked and wired shut...
Yeah, guess what, you can be intelligent statistically, have a high iq, but if you sexual harass women from your own network for 3 decades, you are a fukking moron. Just because you say intelligent shyt sometimes, and you memorize and spew talking points, if you have absolutely no control over your actions when it comes to your dikk, you can be, probably are a stupid fukking moron. It could be stated that an uneducated man or woman, with strong morals, that make simple right or wrong decisions based on a fundamental understanding of right or wrong, is smarter than a Rhodes scholar that can’t stop themselves from raping a woman, or shacking up with a vile, piece of shyt dog that lies, cheats, and steals.
I’m saying, just because Tucker Carlson is a whiney little fukk boy, we don’t have to start comparing other vile, disgusting pieces of shyt in a better light. They all trash, let them stay trash.
DaddyFresh
Superstar
Not when you have multiple intelligences agencies,some of the best hackers in the world and spies all over the world at your disposal . Impossible for a regular person sure. I’m sure any major country could locate anybody if they gave zero fukks.Putin is basically finding people in witness protection
I thought that was impossible. Putin on some other shyt. That man is on another level. We just can't compete
And this nikka was in Florida lol. I guess they assumed Putin wouldn’t be that crazy. You would think he would be in Nebraska or some shyt lol. It’s not like he was just running from the mob
Tucker is an actor playing a role, but his fans don’t realize it. It’s all for ratings, even if it’s ultimately bad for America. Fox News is an entertainment channel, not a news network (I guess you can say that about all the cable news network probably though 
). Spewing propaganda is very lucrative 
). Spewing propaganda is very lucrative Jhoon
Spontaneous Mishaps and Hijinks
Then you bleed him dry. Leave with so little even the public defender is going to have to run his credit score first.
Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
All Im sayin is Putin on some Lex Luther shyt. And he looks like he's gonna live forever. Dude is just on another level. U have to respect his evil.
Yeah, you’re right. I was listening to a pod the other day, and what the guy talking said really resonated with me. None of the people (very little) that spit that wild problematic shyt on tv really believe it. They are just trying to keep the power they have. The guy talking was a country music guy, I never heard of him, but he is wild liberal from Alabama of all places. He said he did a concert a few weeks ago, and he is famous for his wild left liberal songs and views, and who was in the crowd, of all people, Ted Cruz. They all pump fakers.Tucker is an actor playing a role, but his fans don’t realize it. It’s all for ratings, even if it’s ultimately bad for America. Fox News is an entertainment channel, not a news network (I guess you can say that about all the cable news network probably though
:wytwtf: What the fukk was this even? Fukking idiot laughing at his own dumbass joke. It’s Pity Avenatti agreed to go on this nonsense.
Jhoon
Spontaneous Mishaps and Hijinks
It sounds like Tucker is learning. Maybe he does deserve Papa Bills spot.