Posted by Tina
CNN conducted an online poll to demonstrate wide-spread hatred for President Donald Trump:
On Saturday, CNN openly sided with Cuba’s communist regime as it slammed Trump for rolling back former president Barack Obama’s steps to expand relations with Cuba.
So it’s must be a real heartbreaker for the bigwigs at CNN to see the network’s new poll on Trump.
“Should Trump be investigated for obstruction of justice?” the poll asks (remembering to include a very unflattering picture of the president). As of Monday morning, 2,698,604 votes had been cast. The verdict: 70.2% said “no,” just 29.8% said “yes.”
Wooops!
The Leftie media presstitutes are completely outta touch with John/Jane Q. Public – and have been since long before last year’s election.
Given their repetition of “reports” from other Leftie media presstitutes, it seems more like they are all rebroadcasting their Fake News just to each other – and using the same words and phraseology to do so.
A good rule of thumb these days is if there is an “unnamed source” for a “report,” then it’s probably not worth spit.
“…it seems more like they are all rebroadcasting their Fake News just to each other…”
If audience share is any indication I’d say you’re right.
Now that they’ve wounded FOX the alphabet channels are picking up a it…but the numbers don’t come close to the following of their most coveted kill…talk radio.
Rumor has it O’Reilly will again rise.
The left doesn’t understand what’s going on…they just do not get it.
Must factor in the Clinton News Network’s viewers are from the left-side of the aisle. Which must have made it an even bigger surprise for them.
The only reason this poll results got out was because it was on-line. If it had been a phone poll the results would have been swayed against Trump.
In a resent CBS poll showing Trump with a 36% approval rating you’d have to click on a link and go all of the way to the end to find out it was heavily weighted with democrats. The ratio of participant’s party affiliation does not appear anywhere in the article. But, the use of “most and more Americans” is used through out.
And they wonder why we don’t believe the media or pollsters any more.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-handling-of-russia-investigations-weighs-on-approval-ratings/
Link to data where the following info. is finally provided.
Unweighted Weighted
Total Respondents 1,117
Total Republicans 262 270
Total Democrats 374 345
Total Independents 481 502
https://www.scribd.com/document/351763493/Trump-Job-Approval-and-Russia-toplines?secret_password=KBATfKMrwaN37WjuIjEK
The latest from the Great One, Mark Levin. Heard him present his argument last night on his radio show that based on Supreme Court rulings a sitting president can’t be criminally indicted.
Levin being a lawyer and constitutional expert I’m wondering how Trump’s attorneys and Mueller will respond to this.
Mark Levin reveals that under official DOJ policy, a sitting president CANNOT be indicted: (audio)
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-reveals-that-under-official-doj-policy-a-sitting-president-cannot-be-indicted/#ixzz4kYtEbKnY
Alan Dershowitz a hard core democrat who voted for Hillary concurs with Mark Levin.
Dershowitz: Sitting Presidents Can’t Be Indicted:
“Alan Dershowitz said that the Justice Department made very clear that sitting presidents cannot be “indicted, prosecuted, or tried while serving in office.”
The Harvard law professor reminded everyone that the president must first be impeached and removed from office before he can be charged with a crime.”
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/20/alan-dershowitz-sitting-presidents-cant-be-indicted-russia-trump-impeach
Good work Peggy. I think I recall this from the Clinton years…or perhaps W. Anyway it’s probably why they are trying so hard to find a reason to impeach. if you ask me they’ve tainted any future case by trying so hard to make up a reason. Desperate days for the Dems.
It was in 2000, the second time, when the OLC reviewed the 1973 ruling and concurred.
Here is the MOU.
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (“OLC Memo”). The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965) (“SG Brief”). In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.
In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time. In Part I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions. In Part II, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions.2 ”
continued..
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm