Wow, it seems nothing but just a flat out open border and welcoming ANYONE and EVERYONE who wants to come here will satisfy these libtard judges..
IMO FINE. ALL 100k refugees we will be forced to accept get DUMPED INTO HAWAII first. AND if/when they suffer an attack cause a terrorist slipped in, tell them "since you don't want the feds doing their JOB and stopping these people coming in YOU CAN DEAL WITH THE MESS AFTER!"
Just saw on another site that, Gee Whiz. This judge happens to just be a Harvard buddy of Obama, and Obama JUST happened to be in Hawaii for a golf trip, and took a 40 min OUT OF HIS WAY trip to a restaurant for dinner, that JUST so happens to be 5 minutes away from where this judge lives..
HMMM. ANY one smell collusion there?
Obama is now a private citizen. Meeting with the judge in private would not have been acceptable when he was president now, now that he in not the sitting President he can have more interaction with the Judicial Branch than would have been legal or ethical when he was President. He can lobby or be as politically active as he wants.Originally Posted by garhkal
The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.
Wasn't there outrage when BILL met with Lynch on the tarmack// Isn't HE a "Private" citizen??
The difference is Clinton's wife at the time being under criminal investigation and Obama talking a policy issue.
The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.
We don't appoint Judges ( or former Presidents) to make our current foreign policy.
Congress needs to reassert its authority over these out of control judges and start removing these traitors within our gates.
Come on Garkahl. Now you know, They just spent 30 minutes talking about the Grandkids and Bill's golf game that he played, in the middle of the Arizona summer.
Of course, The FBI's being there on the tarmac and instructing the press that there were ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones' allowed was probably also just a coincidence.
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-pho...ely-in-phoenix
Last edited by Rainmaker; 03-19-2017 at 02:39 PM.
No. But a former President is not barred from speaking, lobbying or taking a public stand on current policy issues.
Will agree, judicial activism is an ever increasing problem ... there are procedures to remove judges that are worthy of impeachment, it is hard though because the judiciary is tasked with interpreting the laws as passed ... checks and balances.
The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.
Maybe, but NO where in our history has an ex-president even BEEN this involved in politics after their departure. ESPCECIALLY not so soon after their being removed..
Depends, many have been; you just have to go back a while; most notably John Quincy Adams. He left the Presidency in 1828, then served in Congress from 1831-1848. John Tyler and Andrew Johnson remained very politically active. William Taft was appointed to the Supreme court.
He wasn't removed, his term expired. Otherwise, you are right ... he hasn't been gone very long; but he made it known he didn't plan to be quiet and nothing precludes him from being politically mute.
The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.
Ha! I love it. You smell "collusion" because the former president went to a restaurant down the road from someone who went to the same college. Hilarious. Your foil hat is in the mail.
Meanwhile, we have a current president who has the stink of Russia all over him and the people he has surrounded himself with, many who have either been caught lying about meetings or can't seem to recall if they have met with Russian oligarchs or ambassadors. Nothing to see here, though. Freaking laughable. I love it how people still can't stop blaming Obama for every single thing that happens that they disagree with. Sorry, but whether you or I agree with it or not, many if not most of America is against the president's travel bans/vetting process.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote