• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Manafort sues Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein

True. Plus bots. Can't forget the bots. I truly believe we have some here.
Yeah, the way some of their messages are so poorly crafted and cut and paste, one can help but wonder if they're apart of a troll farm.
 
You didn't need to put in your profile that you're in Alabama.

Your posts would have alluded to that...

“My State is better than yours” insults? Seriously? That’s all you got? Dude, please. I joined this place because a friend told me there were serious political junkies in both sides who could intelligently debate any topic. Up your game, will you?
 
Yeah there's a poster here who was defending a propaganda website the other day, even when I showed him that it was propaganda, and he said that it was still better than the MSM. Some people will not change their minds. That high 30s, low 40s base percentage of his is unwavering.

I engaged one DB Trump supporter the other day that was trying to convince me he had some measure of character and didn't believe everything Trump said. I then asked him IF it was PROVEN to his satisfaction that Trump was guilty of collusion with Russians would he then denounce Trump. He responded by saying "I don't do hypotheticals". Talk about a textbook case of "chicken****itis". ................lol

Trump will never get out of the 30's. In all likelyhood, 2017 will be his very best year.
 
Except that actually violates the 4th amendment that you should request a warrant for a specific crime and if you come across something else that wasn't specific to your warrant, you have to disregard it. Further, you're not subject to unreasonable search and seizure, which having your life picked at endlessly until they find something, anything, is unreasonable.

Special counsels are an affront to the 4th Amendment.

Except that he has already pleaded Guilty.

The courts obviously disagree with your desperation.
 
You've been here all of 5 minutes. You've not seen any temper tantrums from me.
When you do, you will know it.

He won't have to wait long.
 
Wrong again.

The SCOTUS already determined that the independent counsel law was perfectly constitutional, and in fact maintains law and order within the executive branch.

Morrison v. Olson

Furthermore, as I have already explained to you, an investigation does not violate the fourth amendment. It is only when investigators wish to gather evidence that warrants are required by a judge -- which is where the fourth amendment demands probable cause.

Now you understand, so stop repeating this.

No, I won't stop repeating it because I'm correct. The 4th Amendment is very clear. If you cannot read those words for yourself, then there is nothing that will help you.
 
Except that he has already pleaded Guilty.

The courts obviously disagree with your desperation.

Pleading guilty doesn't have anything to do with how an investigation is carried out.

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
No, I won't stop repeating it because I'm correct. The 4th Amendment is very clear. If you cannot read those words for yourself, then there is nothing that will help you.
You're impossible.

Investigations are not the same as search warrants, which is what the fourth amendment is about, so your arguments fails.
 
Pleading guilty doesn't have anything to do with how an investigation is carried out.

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
An investigation is not a search warrant, or a seizure.
 
You're impossible.

Investigations are not the same as search warrants, which is what the fourth amendment is about, so your arguments fails.

1. How did they get the information on his finances?
2. It isn't only about warrants, see bold. It's separated from the warrants by a comma. Personal electronic information has rightly been classified as being included in "papers, and effects".

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
An investigation is not a search warrant, or a seizure.

1. How did they get the information on his finances?
2. It isn't only about warrants, see bold. It's separated from the warrants by a comma. Personal electronic information has rightly been classified as being included in "papers, and effects".

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What you put in bold, and your ability to to read, is off.
 
1. How did they get the information on his finances?
2. It isn't only about warrants, see bold. It's separated from the warrants by a comma. Personal electronic information has rightly been classified as being included in "papers, and effects".

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What you put in bold, and your ability to to read, is off.
Good grief.

The banks flagged his accounts for suspicious activity, which brought on a review by the FBI and IRS, and all the warrants that came with it.

Seems like you no only have no idea what you're talking about, but want a highway fraud to walk, simply because he was once involved with a political figure you support.
 
Good grief.

The banks flagged his accounts for suspicious activity, which brought on a review by the FBI and IRS, and all the warrants that came with it.

Seems like you no only have no idea what you're talking about, but want a highway fraud to walk, simply because he was once involved with a political figure you support.

Sorry, I didn't even vote for Trump. He's not a good President. I'd just figure someone claiming to be a Libertarian would understand what abuse of power was and how it has come to grow over the years. Of course, it is "Libertarian-Left" which we know aren't really Libertarian at all, don't we.
 
Sorry, I didn't even vote for Trump. He's not a good President. I'd just figure someone claiming to be a Libertarian would understand what abuse of power was and how it has come to grow over the years. Of course, it is "Libertarian-Left" which we know aren't really Libertarian at all, don't we.
Weak.
 
Pleading guilty doesn't have anything to do with how an investigation is carried out.

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Keep telling yourself that, while you are at it maybe you can tell us what telling a lie in a civil case and a blue dress have to do with Whitewater. This is not going to work out well for Manafort, just legal maneuvering.
 
Keep telling yourself that, while you are at it maybe you can tell us what telling a lie in a civil case and a blue dress have to do with Whitewater. This is not going to work out well for Manafort, just legal maneuvering.

Nothing. Any other easy questions?
 
Back
Top Bottom