2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: 777The FBI investigation revealed there were classified material, but she was NOT aware of such material exist. Comey has the duty and responsibility to recommending charge her for lying to the FBI if that was the case. But since no charge was brought against her for lying to the FBI, so my take is she had no knowledge classified material, and her answer was truthful based on her knowledge at that time, and your conclusion of her lying is based on based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines.
Okay...here is something where he actually said directly that she lied:
"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."
Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216
Quote: RonCOkay...here is something where he actually said directly that she lied:
"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."
Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216
Then those GOP "interrogator" should be fired for gross negligent and wasting tax payer money for not asking this follow up question: Why didn't you charge her for perjury or for lying to the federal investigator? Either that or the FBI director himself must resign for not prosecuting her for lying to the federal investigator, or be prosecuted for dereliction of duty (for lack of better term).
As I’ve stated before she answered questions truthfully based on her knowledge at the time. No charge was brought against her for lying to the federal investigator means no lying, and any other interpretations are just opinions based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines.
Quote: RonCI don't think anyone accused her of lying to the FBI.
She just lied to the whole world...
So...she should have resigned if this hit the fan when she was Secretary...doesn't the idea that she would have had to resign in disgrace kind of lead to the idea she should not go on to higher office?
Whoops...I can't wait to hear the answers...
Isn't that for the voters to decide? I'm sure some will take your advice to heart. I'm not thrilled about her being President, but no way in hell would I want Trump.
Quote: 777Then those GOP "interrogator" should be fired for gross negligent and wasting tax payer money for not asking this follow up question: Why didn't you charge her for perjury or for lying to the federal investigator? Either that or the FBI director himself must resign for not prosecuting her for lying to the federal investigator, or be prosecuted for dereliction of duty (for lack of better term).
As I’ve stated before she answered questions truthfully based on her knowledge at the time. No charge was brought against her for lying to the federal investigator means no lying, and any other interpretations are just opinions based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines.
Never mind.
Hillary good. Trump evil.
There.
Quote: billryanIsn't that for the voters to decide? I'm sure some will take your advice to heart. I'm not thrilled about her being President, but no way in hell would I want Trump.
It is up to the voters. I think I've said that.
I've also said that I don't feel either party as a candidate to be proud of at this point.
For my honesty, I have some person making up a silly poll.
Quote: billryanIsn't that for the voters to decide? I'm sure some will take your advice to heart. I'm not thrilled about her being President, but no way in hell would I want Trump.
"Who gives a sh!t what that freak RonC does? He's scared to tell his true position here anyway! What a 'tard!" RonC on himself. I wholehaetedly agree 100% with RonC on this because he is an ordinary citizen.
But I demand a higher moral, ethical and intellectual standard for politician or those who can exert great influence on the society. I look at Clinton and Trump on both negative and positive aspects of their personal and profession lives and come to a conclusion that Mrs. Clinton has higher moral, ethical and intellectual standard than Trump.
Adultery is disgraceful, but is forgivable. Trump's continuing bad treatment of woman through sexist comments, and his refusal for not learning from his past misconducts make it difficult for me to ignore his past adultery offenses or other negative activities.
I don’t see anything disgraceful about Clinton’s email controversy because it does not involve espionage or any nefarious acts. Furthernore, Mrs. Clinton had expressed remorse about this, and I believe she had learned a lot from this unfortunate event.
Quote: 777"Who gives a sh!t what that freak RonC does? He's scared to tell his true position here anyway! What a 'tard!" RonC on himself. I wholehaetedly agree 100% with RonC on this because he is an ordinary citizen.
Hey! You agree with me on something!
Quote: 777But I demand a higher moral, ethical and intellectual standard for politician or those who can exert great influence on the society. I look at Clinton and Trump on both negative and positive aspects of their personal and profession lives and come to a conclusion that Mrs. Clinton has higher moral, ethical and intellectual standard than Trump.
Both are far from perfect. I understand your choice based on your apparent leanings. I have not decided what to do other than not vote for Hillary. The chance of the next President nominating 3-4 justices is an issue for me.
Quote: 777Adultery is disgraceful, but is forgivable. Trump's continuing bad treatment of woman through sexist comments, and his refusal for not learning from his past misconducts make it difficult for me to ignore his past adultery offenses or other negative activities.
Hillary's husband may be a big part of her team; how about his treatment of women? Oh wait...none of that was really proven...but Trump's? Oh, guilty, as charged.
You have to admit that you are all over the place on this proof stuff...
Quote: 777I don’t see anything disgraceful about Clinton’s email controversy because it does not involve espionage or any nefarious acts. Furthernore, Mrs. Clinton had expressed remorse about this, and I believe she had learned a lot from this unfortunate event.
Has she really expressed remorse for lying to everyone about it?
Sure, there was nothing to be seen in the whole Benghazi thing. Big waste of time. The administration did everything right. Well, except that they put out a false narrative from the highest levels about some video.
Now the email thing--she lied to everyone except the FBI...because lying to them could result in charges. Lying to the voters? Who cares!
How awkward is that?
Hopefully Republicans will be as outraged over this as they were last week when Hillary flew with Obama........ *crickets*
Quote: ams288Ted Cruz hitched a ride to Texas on Air Force One with President Obama.
How awkward is that?
Hopefully Republicans will be as outraged over this as they were last week when Hillary flew with Obama........ *crickets*
It's all ok unless they shook hands..... (wink)....
Quote: RonCSure, there was nothing to be seen in the whole Benghazi thing. Big waste of time. The administration did everything right. Well, except that they put out a false narrative from the highest levels about some video.
The narrative about the video came from the attackers themselves, that's why the administration picked up on it in the first place:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php
But the administration knew it was B.S. Even Clinton said as much:
"we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." She said that a day after the attack. That is from her testimony during the investigations.
And, in an interview a week after attack, Obama said:
"extremists and terrorists used (the anti-Muslim YouTube video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."
One more quote:
CNN reporter Sarah Aarthun quoted an anonymous senior U.S. administration official: "It was not an innocent mob. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."
The Obama administration knew from day one the video was not to blame, and they made that clear time and time again, but the right-wing media and politicians of course spun the narrative that the administration was saying the video was the sole cause of the attacks. It blows my mind that years later there are people that still believe Obama and Clinton were the ones blaming the video when the exact opposite has been the case from day one. The facts are completely unambiguous, right there in black and white: the Libyan militia were the ones saying it was a response to the video, and everyone from Obama on down said, "Bullroar."
Quote: TigerWuThe narrative about the video came from the attackers themselves, that's why the administration picked up on it in the first place:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php
But the administration knew it was B.S. Even Clinton said as much:
"we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." She said that a day after the attack. That is from her testimony during the investigations.
And, in an interview a week after attack, Obama said:
"extremists and terrorists used (the anti-Muslim YouTube video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."
One more quote:
CNN reporter Sarah Aarthun quoted an anonymous senior U.S. administration official: "It was not an innocent mob. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."
The Obama administration knew from day one the video was not to blame, and they made that clear time and time again, but the right-wing media and politicians of course spun the narrative that the administration was saying the video was the sole cause of the attacks. It blows my mind that years later there are people that still believe Obama and Clinton were the ones blaming the video when the exact opposite has been the case from day one. The facts are completely unambiguous, right there in black and white: the Libyan militia were the ones saying it was a response to the video, and everyone from Obama on down said, "Bullroar."
"In the TV interviews, Ms. Rice said the attack resulted from a popular protest against a U.S.-made video, rather than a pre-planned terrorist attack. The administration later said it believed it was a terrorist attack, not a protest that turned violent."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
I know...that part conveniently never happened.
Yes, they did stop blaming the video...but their initial position but some blame on the video.
I never said that they didn't clean it up as they moved forward. They did.
Quote: RonCYes, they did stop blaming the video...but their initial position but some blame on the video.
As I just stated, their initial position, literally from day one, was that the video was NOT to blame, and was just a scapegoat that the Libyan militia was using as an excuse. That is Obama's and Hillary's own words. Furthermore, that interview with Rice was BEFORE the FBI investigation was even completed, so honestly anything that she or Obama or Hillary were saying up to that point should really have been taken with a grain of salt. But seeing as how the Libyan militia explicitly stated the video was the reason for the attack, you can't really blame some people for thinking so initially.
The right wing media and politicians for years have been saying that the video narrative was the "official 100% true story of the attack" that the Obama administration just pulled out of thin air, when that is nowhere close to the truth.
Quote: ams288
Yes, that is one childish way to respond to the issue of Hillary's lies.
Oh...that's right...she never lies.
Quote: TigerWuAs I just stated, their initial position, literally from day one, was that the video was NOT to blame, and was just a scapegoat that the Libyan militia was using as an excuse. That is Obama's and Hillary's own words. Furthermore, that interview with Rice was BEFORE the FBI investigation was even completed, so honestly anything that she or Obama or Hillary were saying up to that point should really have been taken with a grain of salt. But seeing as how the Libyan militia explicitly stated the video was the reason for the attack, you can't really blame some people for thinking so initially.
The right wing media and politicians for years have been saying that the video narrative was the "official 100% true story of the attack" that the Obama administration just pulled out of thin air, when that is nowhere close to the truth.
Yes, I have it, Hillary never ever did anything wrong.
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
Yes, that is one childish way to respond to the issue of Hillary's lies.
Oh...that's right...she never lies.
Who said she never lies?
You get yourself all worked up over nothing.
You're seriously still talking about the video? It's time to....
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
Yes, that is one childish way to respond to the issue of Hillary's lies.
Oh...that's right...she never lies.
Who said she never lies?
You get yourself all worked up over nothing.
You're seriously still talking about the video? It's time to....
One guy has been trying to deny lies for a couple of days.
So I am the one who should let it go?
Yeah, okay....why not maybe speak up and say something to him...
Quote: RonCYes, I have it, Hillary never ever did anything wrong.
Not sure how you got that out of what I was saying, because Hillary has done plenty of things wrong and I hate that she's probably going to be our next president. But whatever. I guess we're done talking about Benghazi, then.
Quote: TigerWuI guess we're done talking about Benghazi, then.
Hahahahahahaha. How naïve.
We will NEVER be done talking about #Benghazi.
He should have been wielding an assault rifle. Who hunts donkeys with a baseball bat ;-)Quote: ams288
Quote: ams288Hahahahahahaha. How naïve.
We will NEVER be done talking about #Benghazi.
I should have just kept my mouth shut.
Anyway, getting the thread back on topic, Hillary's lead over Trump is shrinking!! Will it be President Trump after all??
Quote: TigerWuI should have just kept my mouth shut.
Anyway, getting the thread back on topic, Hillary's lead over Trump is shrinking!! Will it be President Trump after all??
It is summer time. I don't think much matters until the conventions. If the polls were still very far apart as they were for a bit, it might be a concern.
Once the VP picks are in, the conventions are over (either candidate could make a big jump if they shine more than the other at the conventions), then we'll be back to it...
Chances are still much better of a President Clinton than a President Trump...
The fix is in, not to worry.Quote: RonCIt is summer time. I don't think much matters until the conventions. If the polls were still very far apart as they were for a bit, it might be a concern.
Once the VP picks are in, the conventions are over (either candidate could make a big jump if they shine more than the other at the conventions), then we'll be back to it...
Chances are still much better of a President Clinton than a President Trump...
We should just go ahead and make Hillary POTUS now. At least we'd be mostly done with Barry....
That was three jokes all rolled together in a bagel.
Make that 4 ;-)
Quote: RonCHey! You agree with me on something!
Both are far from perfect. I understand your choice based on your apparent leanings. I have not decided what to do other than not vote for Hillary. The chance of the next President nominating 3-4 justices is an issue for me.
Hillary's husband may be a big part of her team; how about his treatment of women? Oh wait...none of that was really proven...but Trump's? Oh, guilty, as charged.
You have to admit that you are all over the place on this proof stuff...
Has she really expressed remorse for lying to everyone about it?
Sure, there was nothing to be seen in the whole Benghazi thing. Big waste of time. The administration did everything right. Well, except that they put out a false narrative from the highest levels about some video.
Now the email thing--she lied to everyone except the FBI...because lying to them could result in charges. Lying to the voters? Who cares!
First, with regarding to the email/server controversy, she answered questions truthfully (either publicly or under oath) based on her knowledge AT THE TIME.
Now, let's talk about politician lying in general. Politician lying can be in many form: straight out lie, making "impossible" promise, exaggeration, distortion, misleading, evasive ... And ALL politicians lie in various forms and degrees.
Here are 3 quick examples, and you can research for ALL other politicians from ALL party affiliations.
Trump said he witnessed thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11.
Trump said (or guaranteed ???) or Mexico will pay for the wall...
And the BIGGEST lie of all in this 2016 election is this lie:
RonC says he/she will not vote for Trump, or he/she is still undecided on Trump.
That little diatribe was insulting. It insulted RonC. I feel sure he didn't care, prolly chuckled to himself. I chukled, even though I didn't necessarily agree.Quote: 777First, with regarding to the email/server controversy, she answered questions truthfully (either publicly or under oath) based on her knowledge AT THE TIME.
Now, let's talk about politician lying in general. Politician lying can be in many form: straight out lie, making "impossible" promise, exaggeration, distortion, misleading, evasive ... And ALL politicians lie in various forms and degrees.
Here are 3 quick examples, and you can research for ALL other politicians from ALL party affiliations.
Trump said he witnessed thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11.
Trump said (or guaranteed ???) or Mexico will pay for the wall...
And the BIGGEST lie of all in this 2016 election is this lie:
RonC says he/she will not vote for Trump, or he/she is still undecided on Trump.
You do know RonC is a Texan don't you?
Hopefully everyone can chuckle at that. Well, except maybe 777 ( come on boys and girls, lighten up, 'twas a joke within a joke)
I got $10 that says RonC understood.
Quote: 777First, with regarding to the email/server controversy, she answered questions truthfully (either publicly or under oath) based on her knowledge AT THE TIME.
Now, let's talk about politician lying in general. Politician lying can be in many form: straight out lie, making "impossible" promise, exaggeration, distortion, misleading, evasive ... And ALL politicians lie in various forms and degrees.
Here are 3 quick examples, and you can research for ALL other politicians from ALL party affiliations.
Trump said he witnessed thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11.
Trump said (or guaranteed ???) or Mexico will pay for the wall...
And the BIGGEST lie of all in this 2016 election is this lie:
RonC says he/she will not vote for Trump, or he/she is still undecided on Trump.
I guess you forgot to read this thread today...we've moved on at the request of ams288.
You can believe me or not; I could give a crap. Others have admitted Hillary lied and misled about the emails; the FBI Director even said so...you believed him when he said they could not convict her; not so much when he said she was not truthful. Meanwhile, you want to rail on about Trump's lies and distortions.
Was what you said an insult? Who knows. Maybe. I get it, of course...I sure don't want anyone suspended over it.
ams288--sorry...I was trying to talk about other issues but someone ^ just had to come back and do that ^. Please forgive me...
You seem so reasonable elsewhere, 777. Just a little extreme when it comes to opposition.
Quote: FaceYou beat me to it. I was going to ask why the animosity and why 777 is choosing to poke RonC over what is by all accounts nonsense. If there's anyone who I had to place my faith in integrity into, it'd be RonC. If he votes for Trump, I have no doubt he would come here and say exactly that. If not, same thing. The man has never misrepresented himself as far back as I can remember.
You seem so reasonable elsewhere, 777. Just a little extreme when it comes to opposition.
Thanks, Face...
I've said how I felt throughout this cycle. Yes, it has changed some over time as candidates have come and gone. There is no need to lie...
I know that one major concern for me is the balance of power in the group Johnny and the Supremes. I think there may be 2-3 openings (including the current one) in the next four years and maybe 3-4 in the next eight. The Supreme Court seems a little too activist for me and I am not impressed with Ginsburg's recent statements about the election...I thought the Supremes stayed away from talking about candidates...especially when one of them might be someone that make a decision on at some point in the future.
I've explained previously that there isn't as much importance in my vote as that of others...this state probably will not see much of the candidates during the campaign; if it is anything like last time, they'll come in for the money more than anything.
Quote: RonCThe Supreme Court seems a little too activist for me and I am not impressed with Ginsburg's recent statements about the election...I thought the Supremes stayed away from talking about candidates...especially when one of them might be someone that make a decision on at some point in the future.
.
May be an indication Ginsberg needs to retire.
Why not? He's the ultimate troll himself. Give him a taste of his own medicine.
Quote: ams288I personally love the fact that RBG is trolling Trump hardcore.
Why not? He's the ultimate troll himself. Give him a taste of his own medicine.
I'm sorry, but it is a bad look for a sitting Justice to be politically involved. Any of them. They are taking political positions publicly against people they may very have to make court decisions about in the future. Talk in generalities about your own positions--Liberal, Conservative, etc.--but stay stoic about actual candidates.
Quote: RonCI'm sorry, but it is a bad look for a sitting Justice to be politically involved. Any of them. They are taking political positions publicly against people they may very have to make court decisions about in the future. Talk in generalities about your own positions--Liberal, Conservative, etc.--but stay stoic about actual candidates.
If this was a normal election year, I may agree with you. But this is 2016. The Republican party is about to nominate a racist bigoted misogynist who knows nothing about anything as their nominee.
I have no issue with anyone - Supreme Court Justice or not - pointing out what an idiot Donald Trump is.
Now, in an alternate universe - if John Kasich were about to get nominated and RBG started attacking him on Twitter or something - then I'd raise an eyebrow.
Quote: RonCI thought the Supremes stayed away from talking about candidates...especially when one of them might be someone that make a decision on at some point in the future.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.
(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.
COMMENTARY
The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.
Quote: realDonaldTrumpJustice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!
"Her mind is shot."
RBG and Donald Trump should take a citizenship test. Let's see who scores better.
Quote: SanchoPanzaCode of Conduct for United States Judges
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.
(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.
COMMENTARY
The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.
The Supreme Court is not subject to this Code of Conduct.
Quote: ams288The Supreme Court is not subject to this Code of Conduct.
Whatever. They may not be subject to it, but it sure looks like a great guideline for them to follow...
You don't care; so I don't care whether it matters to you or not...
Cheers!
Quote: RonCWhatever. They may not be subject to it, but it sure looks like a great guideline for them to follow...
I'm just stating the facts, since SanchoPanza conveniently left that (most important) bit out!
Quote: ams288I'm just stating the facts, since SanchoPanza conveniently left that (most important) bit out!
Then...you could have said something like:
Quote: ams288The Supreme Court is not subject to this Code of Conduct.
but it sounds like something they should follow.
--then your point would have been clear and you would have also been clear on how you feel about the issue.
Your posts, however, seem to indicate that you are fine with her saying things.
Google "Donald Trump doesn't pay his contractors" and read through the plethora of lawsuits alleging that part of his business strategy is to withhold payment to small business contractors, sometimes putting them out of business because they couldn't afford to take the hit!
How many "little guys" does this man have to cheat in order to win the presidency? We might find out!
Quote: RonCYour posts, however, seem to indicate that you are fine with her saying things.
I am 100% fine with her saying things.
She's trolling Trump. She knows how thin-skinned he is.
Good for her. It worked. He lashed out at her on Twitter. Very Presidential.
And I had high hopes for Marco being an excellent VP on a GOP ticket.
Nobody called and asked for my advice. I was crushed ;-)
Quote: ams288I am 100% fine with her saying things.
She's trolling Trump. She knows how thin-skinned he is.
Good for her. It worked. He lashed out at her on Twitter. Very Presidential.
There is that good old double standard...
The Supreme Court members do not have to maintain the dignity of their office but a Presidential candidate (who may not even be elected) should?
Two wrongs, of course, don't make a right and I am willing to say that I would rather he acted a different way. Same with her!
Oh, they are not U.S. judges?Quote: ams288The Supreme Court is not subject to this Code of Conduct.
Quote: RonCThere is that good old double standard...
The Supreme Court members do not have to maintain the dignity of their office but a Presidential candidate (who may not even be elected) should?
Two wrongs, of course, don't make a right and I am willing to say that I would rather he acted a different way. Same with her!
I think they were both being unprofessional. In fact, if I were Ginsburg I would say, "Okay... I'll resign if you drop out of the race."
Quote: TigerWuI think they were both being unprofessional. In fact, if I were Ginsburg I would say, "Okay... I'll resign if you drop out of the race."
Of course you would say that...why not just let her be professional because the voters cannot decide whether or not she stays in office and let the voters decide whether they want the unprofessional Trump in office.
If both were in elective office, or running for one, then the voters could decide the issue.
I guess you expect her to make derogatory comments and him not to react.
Stating "facts" off the top of your head or from somewhere else does not make them real. Nothing was left out. What was posted was the relevant canon. What do you have to post to show that it is not accurate?Quote: ams288I'm just stating the facts, since SanchoPanza conveniently left that (most important) bit out!
Thus voiding the will of the millions who came out and voted for this particular candidate. Helluva system!Quote: TigerWuI think they were both being unprofessional. In fact, if I were Ginsburg I would say, "Okay... I'll resign if you drop out of the race."
Quote: SanchoPanzaStating "facts" off the top of your head or from somewhere else does not make them real. Nothing was left out. What was posted was the relevant canon. What do you have to post to show that it is not accurate?
Yes or no question:
Are you saying the Supreme Court is bound by this Code of Conduct?
You have declared they are not. You cannot back that up, once again.Quote: ams288Yes or no question:
Are you saying the Supreme Court is bound by this Code of Conduct?
