RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Eric Trump slams Kellyanne Conway’s husband for showing ‘utter disresp - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Eric Trump slams Kellyanne Conway’s husband for showing ‘utter disresp Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,515
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 04 December 2018 - 08:13 AM

Eric Trump slams Kellyanne Conway's husband for showing 'utter disrespect'



www.Nypost.com
By Marisa Schultz
December 3, 2018 | 11:56pm | Updated



Article:


President Trump's son Eric put out a tweet Monday night accusing George Conway of "utter disrespect" toward his wife, White House aide Kellyanne Conway, apparently because of Conway's public comments criticizing the administration.

"Of all the ugliness in politics, the utter disrespect George Conway shows toward his wife, her career, place of work, and everything she has fought SO hard to achieve, might top them all," the president's middle son said. "@KellyannePolls is great person and frankly his actions are horrible."

George Conway, a prominent DC lawyer, has been very publicly at odds with his wife's boss. He recently co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times calling Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker to acting attorney general as unconstitutional and making a "mockery of our constitution."

Earlier Monday, Conway accused President Trump of witness tampering – a federal crime. The rebuke came after Trump said on Twitter his pal Roger Stone has "guts" for not wanting to testify against him.

Conway only responded to Eric Trump by retweeting other users who were critical of Trump's tweet.

"How does noting that your father engaged in witness tampering today disrespect Kellyanne Conway?" one of the tweets that Conway retweeted read.

Kellyanne Conway, who was Trump's successful campaign manager in 2016, has acknowledged her husband's public attacks on her boss have created problems at home.

"I think it's disrespectful," Conway told the Washington Post this summer. "I think it disrespects his wife."

But George Conway has upped his criticism in recent months. He formed a group of anti-Trump conservative lawyers called "Checks and Balances" to speak out against Trump's actions.

Conway has praised his wife for getting Trump elected, but said he can't keep quiet.

"I don't think she likes it," Conway told Yahoo News podcast "Skullduggery" last month. "But I've told her, I don't like the administration, so it's even,"

Full Story

0

#2 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,551
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 04 December 2018 - 08:54 AM

I don’t know anything about these people’s personal dealings with each other. However, as a voter and a middle class American, I’m much happier with Trump as president than anyone in my own American history. So elitist and/or establishment people’s opinions in Washington don’t sway me. My family’s wellbeing and pocketbook and the nation’s security on the other hand do.
0

#3 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,191
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 04 December 2018 - 09:29 AM

Maybe it adds spice to their relationship. Who knows? This couples’ relationship dynamic is really none of Jr Trumps business.
0

#4 User is offline   catpat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,230
  • Joined: 20-April 04

Posted 04 December 2018 - 09:55 AM

I am sorry to go off topic, but I have questions pertaining to a couple of claims in the article.


"George Conway, a prominent DC lawyer, has been very publicly at odds with his wife's boss. He recently co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times calling Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker to acting attorney general as unconstitutional and making a "mockery of our constitution."

What is unconstitutional about appointing Whitaker?


"Earlier Monday, Conway accused President Trump of witness tampering – a federal crime. The rebuke came after Trump said on Twitter his pal Roger Stone has "guts" for not wanting to testify against him."

Is what Trump did witness tampering?
0

#5 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,513
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 04 December 2018 - 10:09 AM

View Postcatpat, on 04 December 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

What is unconstitutional about appointing Whitaker?


He hasn't undergone the advice and consent process in the Senate.

Quote

Is what Trump did witness tampering?


Article I, count 9 in the Nixon impeachment was for "endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony."

Trump praising Roger Stone's "guts" for saying "I will never testify against Trump" also fits that description.
(eta - Eric was probably triggered by a tweet from George Conway earlier in the day referencing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, the law against witness tampering)

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 04 December 2018 - 10:12 AM

0

#6 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,311
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 04 December 2018 - 10:13 AM

 That_Guy, on 04 December 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

He hasn't undergone the advice and consent process in the Senate.



Article I, count 9 in the Nixon impeachment was for "endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony."

Trump praising Roger Stone's "guts" for saying "I will never testify against Trump" also fits that description.
(eta - Eric was probably triggered by a tweet from George Conway earlier in the day referencing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, the law against witness tampering)


:yawn:
0

#7 User is offline   First Sarge 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 746
  • Joined: 04-May 12

Posted 04 December 2018 - 10:19 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 04 December 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

He hasn't undergone the advice and consent process in the Senate.



Article I, count 9 in the Nixon impeachment was for "endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony."

Trump praising Roger Stone's "guts" for saying "I will never testify against Trump" also fits that description.
(eta - Eric was probably triggered by a tweet from George Conway earlier in the day referencing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, the law against witness tampering)


So...I guess you don't understand the word "acting", add it to the long list of things you don't understand. And at what time did President Trump offer anything to Roger Stone? He made a general statement in response to another general statement.
0

#8 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,347
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 10:35 AM

View PostFirst Sarge, on 04 December 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

So...I guess you don't understand the word "acting", add it to the long list of things you don't understand. And at what time did President Trump offer anything to Roger Stone? He made a general statement in response to another general statement.

Just so you know (which I am sure you already do, but it bears repeating), the troll to whom you responded has a 0.00 batting average in legal analysis. Every legal analysis he makes is flawed and every legal prediction he makes come out the opposite of the way he predicted.

The concepts are a touch too complicated for his simple mind to process.
0

#9 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,311
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 04 December 2018 - 10:40 AM

 JerryL, on 04 December 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

Just so you know (which I am sure you already do, but it bears repeating), the troll to whom you responded has a 0.00 batting average in legal analysis. Every legal analysis he makes is flawed and every legal prediction he makes come out the opposite of the way he predicted.

The concepts are a touch too complicated for his simple mind to process.


:exactly:

This post has been edited by RedSoloCup: 04 December 2018 - 10:42 AM

0

#10 User is offline   First Sarge 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 746
  • Joined: 04-May 12

Posted 04 December 2018 - 10:46 AM

View PostJerryL, on 04 December 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

Just so you know (which I am sure you already do, but it bears repeating), the troll to whom you responded has a 0.00 batting average in legal analysis. Every legal analysis he makes is flawed and every legal prediction he makes come out the opposite of the way he predicted.

The concepts are a touch too complicated for his simple mind to process.


I know he has the legal intellect of a turnip, I just love to see the dervish spin.
0

#11 User is offline   catpat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,230
  • Joined: 20-April 04

Posted 04 December 2018 - 11:01 AM

View PostFirst Sarge, on 04 December 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

So...I guess you don't understand the word "acting", add it to the long list of things you don't understand.

Even though you were addressing t_g, it answers my question. I didn't catch the "acting" part, so, yeah, probably no problem with Whitaker.

Quote

And at what time did President Trump offer anything to Roger Stone? He made a general statement in response to another general statement.

That's how I took it, too, and therefore don't see where there was witness tampering.
0

#12 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,513
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 04 December 2018 - 11:18 AM

View PostFirst Sarge, on 04 December 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

So...I guess you don't understand the word "acting", add it to the long list of things you don't understand.


And perhaps you don't understand that the Trump administration's reasoning basically compares the current acting AG to the Ambassador to Siam in 1898 in arguing that exigent circumstances allow the President to circumvent the Senate's advice and consent function.

Quote

And at what time did President Trump offer anything to Roger Stone?


According to the Nixon articles of impeachment, an actual offer isn't necessary:

ARTICLE 1
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice...endeavor(ed) to cause prospective defendants...to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence..., or rewarding individuals for their silence."


Obviously, Trump praising Roger Stone's "guts" for saying, "I will never testify against Trump" fits that description.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 04 December 2018 - 11:18 AM

0

#13 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,347
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 11:23 AM

View PostFirst Sarge, on 04 December 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

I know he has the legal intellect of a turnip, I just love to see the dervish spin.

He just proved it again.

In any case, and on topic, I wish all politicians (and staffers and family) would just stay out of other people's personal lives. If the Conway's want Eric Trump's on how their activities impact the other, they will ask. Beyond that, it is none of his business. If he wants to comment on how her husband is a leftist dick, OK. If he wants to praise Kellyanne for her work, OK. The rest is unnecessary.
0

#14 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,513
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 04 December 2018 - 11:29 AM

 catpat, on 04 December 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Even though you were addressing t_g, it answers my question. I didn't catch the "acting" part, so, yeah, probably no problem with Whitaker.


You may not want to rely on that one word because the line of succession in the DoJ is determined by a specific statute (28 U.S. Code § 508), which says the Deputy AG is supposed to take over if the AG resigns; while the Trump administration is using a more general statute (the Vacancies Reform Act) to justify Whitaker's appointment.

(when there is a question or conflict, the more specific statute controls)

Quote

That's how I took it, too, and therefore don't see where there was witness tampering.


The question is: Will an individual Member of Congress or Senator see it as an attempt to cause Roger Stone to expect favored treatment or reward (in the form of a pardon, perhaps?) for remaining silent.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 04 December 2018 - 11:38 AM

0

#15 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,551
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 04 December 2018 - 12:28 PM

 That_Guy, on 04 December 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:

You may not want to rely on that one word because the line of succession in the DoJ is determined by a specific statute (28 U.S. Code § 508), which says the Deputy AG is supposed to take over if the AG resigns; while the Trump administration is using a more general statute (the Vacancies Reform Act) to justify Whitaker's appointment.

(when there is a question or conflict, the more specific statute controls)



The question is: Will an individual Member of Congress or Senator see it as an attempt to cause Roger Stone to expect favored treatment or reward (in the form of a pardon, perhaps?) for remaining silent.

Backpedaling on AG observed. Remarkable, given that it’s you.

Rewarding only works if offered to a specific person regarding specifically requested action. In this case, Trump didn’t offer anything, and the action he referred to was already done in the past. Your claim requires more proof.
0

#16 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 34,114
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 04 December 2018 - 12:30 PM

View Postzurg, on 04 December 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

.... proof.


You may have to define this for him.
0

#17 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,551
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 04 December 2018 - 12:32 PM

 MTP Reggie, on 04 December 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

You may have to define this for him.

Good idea.

Proof: something That_Guy has never provided.
0

#18 User is offline   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 04 December 2018 - 12:53 PM

Note how the Troll has changed the discussion from the original topic once again? When this thread runs its new course and either dies on its own or is locked by a Moderator, T_G's position won't change, even with 20 people explaining multiple times why he's wrong.
0

#19 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,347
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 01:25 PM

 NH Populist, on 04 December 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

Note how the Troll has changed the discussion from the original topic once again? When this thread runs its new course and either dies on its own or is locked by a Moderator, T_G's position won't change, even with 20 people explaining multiple times why he's wrong.


 JerryL, on 04 December 2018 - 11:23 AM, said:

In any case, and on topic, I wish all politicians (and staffers and family) would just stay out of other people's personal lives. If the Conway's want Eric Trump's (insert: opinion) on how their activities impact the other, they will ask. Beyond that, it is none of his business. If he wants to comment on how her husband is a leftist dick, OK. If he wants to praise Kellyanne for her work, OK. The rest is unnecessary.

This post has been edited by JerryL: 04 December 2018 - 01:25 PM

0

#20 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,376
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 02:10 PM

The first issue is the lack of legality of the entire Mueller operation. It was started by a fired FBI director who leaked information to a friend with the expressed goal of getting a special prosecutor selected by an acting AG who was part of the already corrupted DOJ.

This entire cluster cluck is so insane that it makes banana republics respectable.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users