Richard Painter was once an ethics lawyer for George W Bush.
Lawyer Painter claims Trump must not push the Attorney (AG) General into prosecuting Hillary Clinton, because it is wrong for a sitting president to go after his former opponent from an election campaign.
Wrong? Painter actually wrote:
“[Trump] Pressuring AG to prosecute the person [Hillary] who lost the election is an impeachable offense if we value free elections.”
Impeachable? Really?
By that logic, it might be a good idea for drug traffickers and banksters and mobsters and other miscreants to gain immunity by running for the highest office in the land.
“Hey, you can’t arrest me. I ran for president.”
Painter may be a lawyer, but he doesn’t understand logic. Or he does, and he’s just bloviating, because he wants to pile on Trump.
“Mrs. Clinton, did you begin committing your first felonies after you announced your candidacy for the presidency in 2016?”
“Ha-ha, goodness no. Bill and I were breaking all sorts of laws from the beginning, back in Arkansas.”
If lawyer Painter had lived at the time of Al Capone, he could have said, “Big Al, I have a one-stop shop for your legal problems. Join one of the two political parties and run for president. Then you’ll be untouchable.”
The money-washing Clinton Foundation was not an invention of Donald Trump. Neither was the outrageous uranium deal the Clintons helped engineer, during which 20% of US uranium production was sold to Putin.
“Mrs. Clinton, we’re taking a close look at your role in the invasion of Libya, which turned that nation into a sewer of destruction, death, and chaos.”
“Sorry, I can’t answer questions on that subject. I ran for president.”
“Are you pleading the Fifth?”
“Certainly not. I’m saying I was promised immunity.”
“By whom?”
“Myself.”
I’m waiting for lawyer Painter’s next shot out of the box. It might go this way: “Trump didn’t actually win the election, he colluded with Russia, so he isn’t president, so he can’t order the Attorney General to do anything. Hillary Clinton is actually the president, and as such, she can claim executive privilege and refuse to allow herself to be prosecuted, as long as she remains in office.” Which, in her mind, is forever.
I’m aware that many people believe Trump himself is escaping prosecution for past financial crimes because he is in currently in the White House. However, the last time I looked at the law, two wrongs don’t make a right. If Hillary has committed serious crimes (and she has), then prosecution ought to follow.
The media shouldn’t object. Hillary Clinton, in the dock, in a globally televised trial? The ratings would extend to Mars.
With Mr. Painter as her attorney, there would be fireworks:
“My client, Hillary Clinton, was born in a solar system far, far away. That information has just come to light. Therefore, I challenge the standing of this court to review her actions. At the moment, space ships are departing her home planet with legal papers to serve, including a birth certificate. They should arrive circa 2406AD. Until that time, she should be released on her own recognizance.”
“This is trial is being brought to you by Bayer, maker of Thorazine. Ask your doctor if Thorazine is right for you.”
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
And now, in the interest of equal time, here is a message from the
National Institute of Pancakes: It reads, and I quote, “Fuck waffles.” — George Carlin
Great humor in this article! The reason Clinton is untouchable isn’t because she was a candidate, that was pure imagination, or horsepoo, out of the mouth of the career liar, er, lawyer. She is untouchable because she’s above the law – and I’m not kidding. She first can claim immunity, or no jurisdiction, due to the fact she’s distantly related to King John of England, who in 1213 surrendered to the Pope giving him ownership of Britain but allowing the King to save face. The two entered into an agreement that so long as there were heirs to both sides of their treaty or contract, and there’s always a Pope, that the body of it stands (the body being the ownership of Britain). All US presidents (except for Van Buren), and most governors now are related to this King to keep in place this despicably secret pact of Roman Canon control.
The other way she’s above the law so untouchable is, she is a lawyer, and as such she had to give up her US citizenship to accept a title of nobility from Britain, which is still owned by the Pope from the Treaty of 1213. Lawyers receive the foreign title of nobility, Esquire, which is a rank of gentry originally derived from Squires. Esquires are one degree above a Gentleman and one degree below a Knight (Knight Templar). Lawyers are called to the BAR, which is British, by Inns of Court out of City of London (that dratted sovereign nation inside London, just like DC and Vatican City), so all Inns of Court, even those branches in the US, and all BAR members are paid by Britain, and I’d call that a foreign power (see below).
What blows my mind is not that they’ve managed to hide this information from us so long, but that we’ve had 25 lawyers in the White House so far, which is unconstitutional because if you accept a title of nobility and receive any sort of benefit from it (lawyers get paid) you may not hold any public office, and you lose your US citizenship. The fraud deployed on all of us has been going on, well, forever. All of them are above the law because the law is only for US citizens.
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor shall without the consent of congress accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit (oaths) under them, or either of them. Constitution FOR the United States of America, a treaty between two nations, the United States of America and Great Britain.
Thank you for this. I was looking for a concise & exacting means to express it elsewhere. Knew the rough aspects of it yet could not pin down the finer tactile aspects.
It’s not known as a good ol’ boys’ club for nothing:
“…Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: ‘The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.’
“Impeachment finds implicit Biblical precedent in its qualifications for civil rulers. However, the House of Representatives’ “sole power of impeachment” has no basis in the Bible. This power of self-discipline, indicative of a good ol’ boys’ club, has been employed only once in over 220 years (in the case of Senator William Blount on July 8, 1797), despite the fact that almost everyone in the House of Representatives deserves impeachment. Even Charlie Rangel, with his numerous ethics violations, did not rate an impeachment in 2010. Except in the rarest instances, the members of the House are not about to turn on one another for fear that they, in turn, will be devoured by one another.
“The Biblical power for removing a judge from his bench is to be impartially enforced whenever a judge breaches the Biblical qualifications, as stipulated in Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:13-17, 17:15-19; 2 Chronicles 19:5-8; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Corinthians 6:1-5; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; and Titus 1:5-9….”
For more, see online Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 4.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
I call bulls**t! Besides, fact is, most of “we the people” want her prosecuted along with all of her criminal cohorts in both parties.
Jon Rappoport does an excellent job of being sarcastic while also pointing the obvious.
As long as the Vatican/Illuminati cabal exists, Killary (et al) will be protected.
Yahweh’s Torah should replace the Constitution, while also disavowing The Vatican (et al). In the name of Yeshua, Amen.
http://stoptheglobalists.com/FruitsFromaPoisonousTree.pdf
Painter is the poster child for why women didn’t use to vote.