General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

30. And yet, the blog is equally, if not more, legally fucked up

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #27)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:59 PM

May 2017

Please explain to me what the Supremacy Clause has to do with it, as suggested in the blog.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

149 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Taylor and Mensch now report, based on separate sources, a sealed indictment against DT. [View all] pnwmom May 2017 OP

So, impeach him than throw his ass in the clink! pangaia May 2017 #1

You would need a shit ton of Repugnants in the House and Senate to agree to do that cstanleytech May 2017 #89

Civil Rights Lawyer Andrew C. Laufer's take womanofthehills May 2017 #132

Ya if they all voted to shield him but if the majority in the House vote to impeach all they need cstanleytech May 2017 #135

K&R Your thread was up just before mine, so I'm deleting it. MelissaB May 2017 #2

No getting my hopes up just yet. Have more faith in the financial subpoenas. Follow the money! Feathery Scout May 2017 #3

Preposterous melman May 2017 #4

so what, even if true, you still have to have the GOP caucus willing to start the process... Thomas Hurt May 2017 #5

if this is true.... chillfactor May 2017 #12

The Supremacy clause does not prohibit prosecution of a sitting president nt marylandblue May 2017 #6

I'll believe it when I see it. Agschmid May 2017 #7

Of course. It's not proven yet. n/t pnwmom May 2017 #22

As was pointed out in comments on this, moonscape May 2017 #8

I don't think the FISA court issues that kind of warrant ucrdem May 2017 #9

From my 'Worst Week Ever' file Comrade Donald May 2017 #10

Complete Bullshit jberryhill May 2017 #11

I would suggest you tread carefully with your comments. sheshe2 May 2017 #15

This is not some kind of mysterious question jberryhill May 2017 #16

Comrade, it's over Comrade Donald May 2017 #17

Unlike anonymous bullshit artists... jberryhill May 2017 #77

Why? I pay high price for shade. Comrade Donald May 2017 #91

He probably got the part about the FISA court wrong. But James Comey himself pnwmom May 2017 #20

Are you serious? A tweet is not that long jberryhill May 2017 #21

I had been focused on the statement in the Patribotics blog and just posted the tweets pnwmom May 2017 #23

The Patribotics blog is even dumber jberryhill May 2017 #28

And yet there was no attempt made to criminally indict President Nixon. pnwmom May 2017 #42

How is that relevant to the question? jberryhill May 2017 #55

What if it's a state (rather than federal) court issuing the indictment? thesquanderer May 2017 #72

Then what would the FISA court have to do with it? jberryhill May 2017 #74

One of the two sources said no court specified, so... thesquanderer May 2017 #79

That does not cure the bullshit in the blog post jberryhill May 2017 #81

I wonder if by "supremacy clause" he may have been (wrongly, I think) referring to... thesquanderer May 2017 #87

The Supremacy Clause has absolutely nothing to do with it jberryhill May 2017 #88

I do not believe or disbelieve. thesquanderer May 2017 #90

Did I say there were no sealed indictments anywhere? jberryhill May 2017 #111

I assume you've seen this...? thesquanderer May 2017 #114

That would be a safe assumption jberryhill May 2017 #115

Sorry, I don't read every response or note every author. thesquanderer May 2017 #117

Here's are some good DU threads... jberryhill May 2017 #120

Fitzmas is still coming! FBaggins May 2017 #144

He corrected it in second tweet. sharedvalues May 2017 #39

Let me know when he corrects the abject nonsense on the blog jberryhill May 2017 #40

And there's this: pnwmom May 2017 #48

Ah, another tweet jberryhill May 2017 #52

I'm wondering that as well. Louise did NOT say FISA court granted the indictment in the article. n/t MelissaB May 2017 #25

See my comments on the article jberryhill May 2017 #41

Settle down, Bevis. I've read your snarky comments. MelissaB May 2017 #45

I have all the answers snooper2 May 2017 #147

An attorney tweeted this: pnwmom May 2017 #54

Yes, so? jberryhill May 2017 #57

Oh boy, an attorney tweeted!! onenote May 2017 #70

What's amazing is... jberryhill May 2017 #78

James Comey said that he is working with 2 Federal prosecutors, including one pnwmom May 2017 #92

Well, why doesn't the blog and tweet identify the courts where these indictments are emanating from? onenote May 2017 #96

How dare you post facts! jberryhill May 2017 #100

And then deleted his account because he was so wrong: jberryhill May 2017 #99

The FISA courts have certified question jurisdiction sharedvalues May 2017 #37

On issues of probable cause relating to surveillance warrants jberryhill May 2017 #49

A little more broad than that sharedvalues May 2017 #62

So, please, explain this to me jberryhill May 2017 #64

And there was this: pnwmom May 2017 #50

Okay, so jberryhill May 2017 #59

Louise Mensch says no issuing court specified womanofthehills May 2017 #56

Claude and Louise ... HopeAgain May 2017 #13

Under clause Zo Zig May 2017 #14

Bill Palmer - the purpose of this indictment is to try to kickstart the impeachment process womanofthehills May 2017 #18

Palmer too? HopeAgain May 2017 #34

So is this why we had half a dozen threads today condemning Mensch and Taylor? Mr. Ected May 2017 #19

Why do people always focus on personalities jberryhill May 2017 #24

Taylor said that in his tweet, but it was not repeated in the post in Mensch's Patribotics, pnwmom May 2017 #27

And yet, the blog is equally, if not more, legally fucked up jberryhill May 2017 #30

I think that is just a layperson's way of acknowledging that the 3 branches are co-equal pnwmom May 2017 #33

Oh come on... jberryhill May 2017 #35

Taylor corrected. sharedvalues May 2017 #43

Do you understand what certified question jurisdiction is? jberryhill May 2017 #61

This is stupid. DefenseLawyer May 2017 #26

The report in Mensch's blog says nothing about a FISA court being involved. pnwmom May 2017 #29

Hey, Defenselawyer jberryhill May 2017 #32

The Supremacy Clause simple says federal law trumps state law. DefenseLawyer May 2017 #47

It's sad jberryhill May 2017 #63

I posted this a while ago: L. Coyote May 2017 #31

I think they're talking to pissed-off Federal agents ucrdem May 2017 #38

From an attorney: FISA court can convene a grand jury who can issue a true bill. MelissaB May 2017 #36

They rubberstamp eavesdropping warrants. ucrdem May 2017 #44

It can empanel a grand jury to find probable cause to issue a warrant jberryhill May 2017 #46

An attorney, on Twitter, that doesn't know what he's talking about DefenseLawyer May 2017 #69

lol Sorry, but this is pure fantasy. Oneironaut May 2017 #51

So we're to believe that Dana Boente is leading the charge against Trump onenote May 2017 #53

Even if untrue, it's spreading across the Internet and will make Trump freak out! Doodley May 2017 #58

For entertainment, I used to read the "birther" threads at FreeRepublic jberryhill May 2017 #65

Jesus Charlotte Little May 2017 #107

The initial claim, before it was changed in view of it being a howler jberryhill May 2017 #108

Forest, not the trees, jberryhill Charlotte Little May 2017 #110

Where did I say it was my business what you read? jberryhill May 2017 #112

weaksauce Charlotte Little May 2017 #113

I don't think I'm capable of screaming down anything jberryhill May 2017 #121

Serious Questions Charlotte Little May 2017 #136

simple jberryhill May 2017 #137

I'm baffled... Charlotte Little May 2017 #139

"But to flat out think that there could be no indictment for impeachment is naive" jberryhill May 2017 #140

Oh, so very sorry Charlotte Little May 2017 #141

I don't understand the tone jberryhill May 2017 #142

Like I wrote to you... Charlotte Little May 2017 #143

If I or anyone else wants to read Mensch and Taylor, it's really NOYDB. Madam45for2923 May 2017 #125

Why would you intentionally read BS? snooper2 May 2017 #148

Maybe that was the intent all along! Mr. Ected May 2017 #66

Spreading falsehoods is a poor tactic in service of the truth jberryhill May 2017 #71

Not to the intelligence community Mr. Ected May 2017 #73

Irony truly is dead jberryhill May 2017 #75

The accuser received threats and withdrew her case. n/t Qutzupalotl May 2017 #85

Riiiight.... jberryhill May 2017 #86

It my be happening now mehrrh May 2017 #60

If it's true, it'll be on a legit news site, like CNN. I don't know this Mensch. Honeycombe8 May 2017 #67

She's a former Tory MP and used to be a top Rupert Murdoch executive. QC May 2017 #76

Still works for News Corp melman May 2017 #83

I thought DT said CNN is fake news. Doodley May 2017 #82

It took 5 months for most of the American media to confirm her story about the October FISA pnwmom May 2017 #95

There was no October FISA warrant, that I can tell. Honeycombe8 May 2017 #102

Your googling leaves a great deal to be desired. nt pnwmom May 2017 #103

Oh, I found it. Comey & Clapper testimony. Honeycombe8 May 2017 #104

Ever hear of BBC, the Guardian, or McClatchy? They were the first. pnwmom May 2017 #105

This is the BBC. It is more meaningful. However... Honeycombe8 May 2017 #126

Of course they're unable to verify it! The info is classified. pnwmom May 2017 #127

The BBC report doesn't mention Mensch or use the same source(s). It doesn't mention Honeycombe8 May 2017 #131

You're right, the BBC report didn't mention Mensch. But it DID confirm the FISA pnwmom May 2017 #133

Here's a Guardian piece that summarizes the confirmations of Mensch's FISA story. pnwmom May 2017 #122

The Guardian story is just repeating that "Mensch says...." So it's not a verified direct news story Honeycombe8 May 2017 #123

Here, I'll make it easier for you. pnwmom May 2017 #124

So this means the Russians were also behind the Ferguson protests, right? jberryhill May 2017 #146

She didn't say they were "behind the Ferguson protests." pnwmom May 2017 #149

When do you expect they might confirm her claim that BLM is a Russian Front? jberryhill May 2017 #145

This is happening so fast now Blue_Roses May 2017 #68

Keeping my fingers and toes crossed! AgadorSparticus May 2017 #80

Will he share a cell with Spicey? flamingdem May 2017 #84

kick Dawson Leery May 2017 #93

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2017 #94

Definition of "sealed indictment" for anyone who doesn't understand (like me)... lamp_shade May 2017 #97

If this is true, we'll know in a very short time. Vinca May 2017 #98

It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas... Kahuna7 May 2017 #101

Always remember these are Tweets, not news. Kablooie May 2017 #106

Keith thinks there was something this and as he points out they were right about Demsrule86 May 2017 #109

In 24 business hours!!!! Foamfollower May 2017 #116

"BUSH AND CHENEY INDICTED" jberryhill May 2017 #118

Skepticism is always a good idea. Warren DeMontague May 2017 #134

Multiple sources are reporting that Bigfoot + the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK and were behind 9/11 YoungDemCA May 2017 #119

Would the FBI have the autonomy to perform an investigation on Trump..all the way to Feathery Scout May 2017 #128

Congress wouldn't disclose details of a classified investigation to the public. pnwmom May 2017 #129

Like how Chaffetz kept Hillary's secret when Comey notified him? Feathery Scout May 2017 #130

Left is catching up fast with it's own FAKE news ecosystem. Cattledog May 2017 #138