Screw him and you i want transcripts of the meetings because he has no authority to negotiate anyhting
Who the Hell does John Kerry think he is?
- Thread starter Wolverine
- Start date
Screw him and you i want transcripts of the meetings because he has no authority to negotiate anyhting
I doubt Russia was worried about waiting on trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...er_when_obama_promised_putin_flexibility.html
Our Constitution acts as a limit on what our government can do. That includes acting as a limit on what they can punish people for doing abroad. Picture, for example, if there was a law that said that anyone who attended a church service outside the US would be imprisoned for that, upon returning to the US. Would that run afoul of the First Amendment? Yes. Although it only limits what people can do outside the US, it would still be a violation of the free exercise clause. Similarly, imagine if, in 2020 Trump and the Republicans completely lose power and on the way out Trump pardons everyone in his inner circle for their crimes.... then picture the Democrats pass a bunch of laws, when the Trump family is visiting his Scottish golf course, and those laws say the Trump family should be seized, flown to Gitmo and imprisoned for their crimes, notwithstanding the pardons. They'd have all sorts of legal defenses against that -- it would be a violation of due process, it would be a bill of attainder, it would be a denial of the right to counsel, it would run afoul of the Constitution's pardon language, and so on. But if the Constitution didn't apply with regard to what the US government can do outside our borders, none of that would matter. Fortunately, that's not the way Constitutional law works. There are plenty of legal precedents (including with regard to Gitmo), which make that clear.
Protip: there's nobody on this forum, you included, who thinks you are more of an authority on what makes people look smart than I am. Anyway, let me know if you can think of a substantive response. Good luck!
That's a lot of babbling. The rights laid out in our constitution do not apply nor protect American citizens abroad. That is a fact.
You have no right to transcripts of a discussion held by a private citizen. We are not yet the dictatorship you lust for. Kerry is a citizen of the United States and has a First Amendment right to speak with representatives of foreign governments -- if that weren't the case, we'd be talking about jailing Trump for his talks with Putin before he became president. If you have evidence that Kerry shared classified information, or conspired to violate campaign finance laws, or something of the sort, there could be a case against him. But so far, there's nothing of the sort.
Russia invested a lot of money and manpower into getting Trump elected. So yes, it makes sense they'd think there was some value in waiting until he was president and could return the favor.
Getin the ring
Verified User
give me one example of what the Russians did to help get Trump elected, just one, I'll wait for the stupid answer
AND
why don't you explain to us what Obama meant when he whispered to the Russians on live mic, "I'll be able to do more after the election"
nut-bag
The rights laid out in our Constitution apply with regard to the actions of the US government, both at home and abroad.... and not just with regard to citizens. Have you read Boumediene v. Bush? Boumediene wasn't even a US citizen. He was a citizen of Bosnia and Herzogovina. And he was never in the US -- he was kidnapped by the US government in Bosnia and flown right to Cuba. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that he had a constitutional habeas corpus right.
These are not new legal ideas. From very early in the history of the Republic, the courts have held that suspected pirates apprehended by the US on the high seas are entitled to due process, under the Constitution. In fact, this was a major point of contention between US colonists and the English courts, before the revolution, since the English took the position that US colonists captured on the high seas were not protected by English law and thus couldn't demand due process or even habeas corpus.... they could simply be summarily impressed into penal servitude in the British Navy. When our own system was set up, we didn't create that concept that the government was free to do whatever shit it wanted outside our borders.
Sure. They ran lots of anti-Clinton ads.
He meant that some acts he might be willing to take after the election he wouldn't take before the election, because they'd give his opponent material to use as the basis for attacks. I don't think it's terribly hard to understand. It's extremely commonplace for politicians to time certain moves such as to maximize or minimize their political impact.
How about you? What do you think he meant by it?
that is a little different then a former sec of state ( with no powers or incoming powers),, But if it were back at the June 2016 you would have Russian collusion -albeit not a criminal conspiracy. But there is absolutely no evidence of this..
which is why i hate to debate your scenarios -try to stick to what actually happens
you miss the point that only Obama could negotiate on part of the USA. He could join other states in an executive agreement,but only he could act on the part of the USA in that capacity
Getin the ring
Verified User
And you don't even realize that's ^^^^ stupid, do you?
CNN, among others ran a lot of anti Trump ads.
you know what, you are a perfect example of hypocrisy, and triggered stupidity
I have no idea what he meant, but it sounded like he was hiding something from the voters, again, stupid might not see that, triggered stupid surely won't understand it.
And let's understand your position, Obama can plot behind the scenes as a sitting president, but Trump can't as a private citizen trying to become President?
It's so hard to talk to nut-bag, it really is
Problem is, no they really didn't, but I am sure that keeps you from crying yourself to sleep at night since Hillary lost.
He meant, I will be a lame Duck President who won't have to worry about pissing off the electorate when I screw them.
evince
Truthmatters
a private citizen can talk to whomever they want Nazi boy
So wait, when Obama tried to influence people to vote against Bibi in Israel which he used tax payer money to do by the way, that was fine. But you claiming Russians did it with no proof it's the Gospel?
Nazi boy?
He can't negotiate with a foreign power, I would like transcripts of the meetings.You must realize by now that Trump snowflakes are excellent puppets. John Kerry is not one of you Trump puppets, get over it children. America remains the land of the free for thoughtful people, you blind followers just follow if it makes you happy. Donnie will tell you lies and other BS at his next rally, be patience snowflakes, Donnie will tell you what to cheer.
“The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way in which opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology. Science is empirical, tentative, and undogmatic; all immutable dogma is unscientific. The scientific outlook is the intellectual counterpart of what is, in the practical sphere, the outlook of Liberalism.” Bertrand Russell
“The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way in which opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology. Science is empirical, tentative, and undogmatic; all immutable dogma is unscientific. The scientific outlook is the intellectual counterpart of what is, in the practical sphere, the outlook of Liberalism.” Bertrand Russell
Achooooooooo! Sorry I am allergic to Bullshit!