|
Post by augustwest on Apr 29, 2024 12:39:42 GMT -5
Is there anything quite as fascisticly moronic as calling for the elimination of your political opponents to save democracy? No wonder the Dems are obsessed with Putin. They're just like him. HAHA that is exactly what Trump has said he will do when he is re-elected They can’t understand parody and irony.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 12:43:21 GMT -5
Is there anything quite as fascisticly moronic as calling for the elimination of your political opponents to save democracy? No wonder the Dems are obsessed with Putin. They're just like him. HAHA that is exactly what Trump has said he will do when he is re-elected That's a lie. Please provide the quote.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 12:45:36 GMT -5
Are you saying he should be able to have whoever he claims is a threat to democracy imprisoned or executed? Joe Biden and the Democrats are the real threat to democracy. That’s what SCOTUS is debating. If they choose to eliminate checks and balances why should Biden be the last president to not use the new power? The next one will for sure. That is what Biden is trying to do now. No question his administration is behind all these "lawfare" cases being brought against a political rival.
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Apr 29, 2024 12:51:40 GMT -5
That’s what SCOTUS is debating. If they choose to eliminate checks and balances why should Biden be the last president to not use the new power? The next one will for sure. That is what Biden is trying to do now. No question his administration is behind all these "lawfare" cases being brought against a political rival. I question that. So there are questions
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 29, 2024 13:02:59 GMT -5
Are you saying he should be able to have whoever he claims is a threat to democracy imprisoned or executed? Joe Biden and the Democrats are the real threat to democracy. That’s what SCOTUS is debating. If they choose to eliminate checks and balances why should Biden be the last president to not use the new power? The next one will for sure. It's the Democrats destroying the checks and balances with these blatantly political legal cases. If you're going to charge a former President with a crime, it needs to be an open and shut case, and something your own side doesn't do flagrantly. Not this "he improperly recorded a legal expense as a legal expense" stupidity. Or the Trump can't have classified documents unless he hides them behind Biden's Corvette nonsense. It was this blatantly politicizing the law that is putting SCOTUS in this really bad position.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 29, 2024 13:05:14 GMT -5
HAHA that is exactly what Trump has said he will do when he is re-elected That's a lie. Please provide the quote. I will be your retribution.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 13:20:26 GMT -5
That’s what SCOTUS is debating. If they choose to eliminate checks and balances why should Biden be the last president to not use the new power? The next one will for sure. That is what Biden is trying to do now. No question his administration is behind all these "lawfare" cases being brought against a political rival. Actually there is ZERO, ZERO evidence of that
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 13:25:43 GMT -5
That’s what SCOTUS is debating. If they choose to eliminate checks and balances why should Biden be the last president to not use the new power? The next one will for sure. It's the Democrats destroying the checks and balances with these blatantly political legal cases. If you're going to charge a former President with a crime, it needs to be an open and shut case, and something your own side doesn't do flagrantly. Not this "he improperly recorded a legal expense as a legal expense" stupidity. Or the Trump can't have classified documents unless he hides them behind Biden's Corvette nonsense. It was this blatantly politicizing the law that is putting SCOTUS in this really bad position. The New York State felony case, which you keep mis-representing, has nothing to do with either the Biden administration or the Supreme Court SCOTUS is in a bad position because the former president tried to orchestrate a coup and now wants SCOTUS to say that he has total immunity. Furthermore, the appeals court decision was so solid that SCOTUS didn't need to hear this case at all. No one, not even a former president, should be above the law
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 13:31:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 13:37:46 GMT -5
Jack Smith is an independent counsel. He does not coordinate with the Biden White House. That's the whole point of independent counsels Unless you can show me that the grand juries in Georgia, New York, Florida, and Washington, DC were filled with White House staffers, you got nothing. Many of these investigations (and grand jury processes) pre-dated Trump's decision to run again. It's not our fault idiotic GOP primary voters chose a guy facing 90 felony counts in two different state courts and two different federal courts. That's on you.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 13:52:18 GMT -5
Jack Smith is an independent counsel. He does not coordinate with the Biden White House. That's the whole point of independent counsels Unless you can show me that the grand juries in Georgia, New York, Florida, and Washington, DC were filled with White House staffers, you got nothing. Many of these investigations (and grand jury processes) pre-dated Trump's decision to run again. It's not our fault idiotic GOP primary voters chose a guy facing 90 felony counts in two different state courts and two different federal courts. That's on you. But Jack Smith did meet with WH officials. Even a lousy attorney can indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury. Your premise that only WH staffers would be biased is laughable. Which of the investigations pre-dated his decision to run again?
|
|
|
Post by mrsmlh on Apr 29, 2024 13:55:17 GMT -5
HAHA that is exactly what Trump has said he will do when he is re-elected That's a lie. Please provide the quote. Unlike some here, I'm not a liar.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 13:57:09 GMT -5
That's a lie. Please provide the quote. Unlike some here, I'm not a liar. Then cite the quote.
|
|
|
Post by mrsmlh on Apr 29, 2024 14:01:17 GMT -5
He says he will lock them up for starters: linkWants to root out opponents: linkHe threatens revenge: link
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 16:34:27 GMT -5
Jack Smith is an independent counsel. He does not coordinate with the Biden White House. That's the whole point of independent counsels Unless you can show me that the grand juries in Georgia, New York, Florida, and Washington, DC were filled with White House staffers, you got nothing. Many of these investigations (and grand jury processes) pre-dated Trump's decision to run again. It's not our fault idiotic GOP primary voters chose a guy facing 90 felony counts in two different state courts and two different federal courts. That's on you. But Jack Smith did meet with WH officials. Even a lousy attorney can indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury. Your premise that only WH staffers would be biased is laughable. Which of the investigations pre-dated his decision to run again? Classified documents conspiracy to submit fraudulent electors January 6th and the New York falsified documents case. In other words, all of them. Please show me where Jack Smith met with White House officials and the minutes of the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 29, 2024 17:24:33 GMT -5
If I had to write this SCOTUS opinion, here's what it would say:
On the question of whether a former president enjoys blanket immunity from criminal charges: DENIED. However, over the last several months, this court has had to rule on an absurd Colorado Supreme Court ruling that attempted to disqualify a former President from the ballot for insurrection without a conviction for insurrection; and has witnessed the New York courts violate a former President's 8th Amendment rights. It has become apparent that state and local courts, hijacked by partisan actors, have created a situation which risks a catastrophic spiral that will likely lead to retaliatory prosecutions. THEREFORE this court finds that the ability to prosecute a former President must be limited to federal prosecutors and heard in only the federal courts. We are doing this with the hope that a sitting President would understand the full gravity and consequences of prosecuting a predecessor on frivolous grounds and only allow the strongest cases to proceed. THEREFORE all cases against former President Trump in state or local courts are hereby dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. They may be referred to federal prosecutors and relevant regulatory agencies for follow up in the federal system.
On the question of whether or not former President Trump enjoys blanket immunity on the charges currently pending in federal courts: >insert whatever decision comes out of the Fischer v. US case here<, and the classified documents cases are dismissed on grounds of selective prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 17:24:43 GMT -5
But Jack Smith did meet with WH officials. Even a lousy attorney can indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury. Your premise that only WH staffers would be biased is laughable. Which of the investigations pre-dated his decision to run again? Classified documents conspiracy to submit fraudulent electors January 6th and the New York falsified documents case. In other words, all of them. Please show me where Jack Smith met with White House officials and the minutes of the meeting. You didn't provide any dates of those charges. How convenient. I provided a link above that shows where Smith met with WH officials. You want the minutes of the meeting? LMFAO
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 17:32:38 GMT -5
Classified documents conspiracy to submit fraudulent electors January 6th and the New York falsified documents case. In other words, all of them. Please show me where Jack Smith met with White House officials and the minutes of the meeting. You didn't provide any dates of those charges. How convenient. I provided a link above that shows where Smith met with WH officials. You want the minutes of the meeting? LMFAO 1. You asked which investigations pre-dated his running for office. I answered the question. All of them 2.what link? 3. You are just not very good at this
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 17:34:52 GMT -5
If I had to write this SCOTUS opinion, here's what it would say: On the question of whether a former president enjoys blanket immunity from criminal charges: DENIED. However, over the last several months, this court has had to rule on an absurd Colorado Supreme Court ruling that attempted to disqualify a former President from the ballot for insurrection without a conviction for insurrection; and has witnessed the New York courts violate a former President's 8th Amendment rights. It has become apparent that state and local courts, hijacked by partisan actors, have created a situation which risks a catastrophic spiral that will likely lead to retaliatory prosecutions. THEREFORE this court finds that the ability to prosecute a former President must be limited to federal prosecutors and heard in only the federal courts. We are doing this with the hope that a sitting President would understand the full gravity and consequences of prosecuting a predecessor on frivolous grounds and only allow the strongest cases to proceed. THEREFORE all cases against former President Trump in state or local courts are hereby dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. They may be referred to federal prosecutors and relevant regulatory agencies for follow up in the federal system. On the question of whether or not former President Trump enjoys blanket immunity on the charges currently pending in federal courts: >insert whatever decision comes out of the Fischer v. US case here<, and the classified documents cases are dismissed on grounds of selective prosecution. anyone who ever doubted that RJ is a lying partisan hack only need to read this pile of excrement.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 18:10:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 20:29:53 GMT -5
1. You asked which investigations pre-dated his running for office. I answered the question. All of them 2.what link? 3. You are just not very good at this 1. You didn't prove anything without dates. You asked whether the investigations began before Trump announced. They did Gee, if there was only some way for you to figure that out out on your own Why is it that Trumpists expect other people to do their homework for them?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 21:49:28 GMT -5
1. You didn't prove anything without dates. You asked whether the investigations began before Trump announced. They didGee, if there was only some way for you to figure that out out on your own Why is it that Trumpists expect other people to do their homework for them? No, I asked whether they were charged before Trump announced. They didn't. Trump announced his run for 2024 on November 5, 2022 Bragg indicted Trump for the hush money case on March 28, 2023 Leticia indicted Trump for the fraud case on April 12, 2023 Jackie boy indicted Trump for the documents case on June 9, 2023 Fani indicted Trump for the election interference case on August 14, 2023 You do have a point about doing our own research because you guys like to lie.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 21:54:03 GMT -5
You asked whether the investigations began before Trump announced. They didGee, if there was only some way for you to figure that out out on your own Why is it that Trumpists expect other people to do their homework for them? They didn't. Trump announced his run for 2024 on November 5, 2022 Bragg indicted Trump for the hush money case on March 28, 2023 Leticia indicted Trump for the fraud case on April 12, 2023 Frankie boy indicted Trump for the documents case on June 9, 2023 Fani indicted Trump for the election interference case on August 14, 2023 You do have a point about doing our own research because you guys like to lie. You are confused and have thus made a fool of yourself You asked when the investigations into Trump’s rampant lawlessness began and I told you. Before he announced. Grand jury indictments are the end results of prolonged investigations. So, you have just revealed yourself, yet again, to be completely ignorant of basic facts Maybe one day you’ll listen to people who know what they are talking about. Maybe
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 21:59:42 GMT -5
They didn't. Trump announced his run for 2024 on November 5, 2022 Bragg indicted Trump for the hush money case on March 28, 2023 Leticia indicted Trump for the fraud case on April 12, 2023 Frankie boy indicted Trump for the documents case on June 9, 2023 Fani indicted Trump for the election interference case on August 14, 2023 You do have a point about doing our own research because you guys like to lie. You are confused and have thus made a fool of yourself You asked when the investigations into Trump’s rampant lawlessness began and I told you. Before he announced. Grand jury indictments are the end results of prolonged investigations. So, you have just revealed yourself, yet again, to be completely ignorant of basic facts Maybe one day you’ll listen to people who know what they are talking about. Maybe Nope, I asked when were they charged, not investigated. Another untruth from you.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 30, 2024 15:07:44 GMT -5
You are confused and have thus made a fool of yourself You asked when the investigations into Trump’s rampant lawlessness began and I told you. Before he announced. Grand jury indictments are the end results of prolonged investigations. So, you have just revealed yourself, yet again, to be completely ignorant of basic facts Maybe one day you’ll listen to people who know what they are talking about. Maybe Nope, I asked when were they charged, not investigated. Another untruth from you. Liar Which of the investigations pre-dated his decision to run again?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 30, 2024 15:21:02 GMT -5
Nope, I asked when were they charged, not investigated. Another untruth from you. Liar Which of the investigations pre-dated his decision to run again? That's right, some did investigate before his announcement. They have been spying on and investigating him since 2016. Everyone knew he would run again. Funny how they waited until the election year to charge and prosecute. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 30, 2024 16:19:24 GMT -5
That's right, some did investigate before his announcement. They have been spying on and investigating him since 2016. Everyone knew he would run again. Funny how they waited until the election year to charge and prosecute. I wonder why? 1. Well, it's good of you to admit that you were wrong. That's progress 2. It is DOJ policy that you cannot indict a sitting president 3. Three of the investigations stem from Trump's alleged criminal activity between November 2020 and summer 2021 - retaining top secret and other classified documents and obstructing the investigation into those documents • illegal efforts to overturn a free and fair election including, but not limited to, a multi-state conspiracy to submit fraudulent electors 4. You want us to believe that Bill Barr's justice department was spying on Trump? What kind of drugs are you on?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 30, 2024 16:35:38 GMT -5
That's right, some did investigate before his announcement. They have been spying on and investigating him since 2016. Everyone knew he would run again. Funny how they waited until the election year to charge and prosecute. I wonder why? 1. Well, it's good of you to admit that you were wrong. That's progress 2. It is DOJ policy that you cannot indict a sitting president. 3. Three of the investigations stem from Trump's alleged criminal activity between November 2020 and summer 2021 - retaining top secret and other classified documents and obstructing the investigation into those documents • illegal efforts to overturn a free and fair election including, but not limited to, a multi-state conspiracy to submit fraudulent electors 4. You want us to believe that Bill Barr's justice department was spying on Trump? What kind of drugs are you on? 1. I only misspoke by saying investigations instead of charges. My point stands. 2. Is it DOJ policy not to spy on or investigate a sitting president? Otherwise your point is null. 3. Yes and what is your point? He was accused of those things. 4. You never heard of the "deep state"? If they operated under the direction of the Attorney General or any other appointed chief they wouldn't be "deep state" by definition.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 30, 2024 16:43:28 GMT -5
1. Well, it's good of you to admit that you were wrong. That's progress 2. It is DOJ policy that you cannot indict a sitting president. 3. Three of the investigations stem from Trump's alleged criminal activity between November 2020 and summer 2021 - retaining top secret and other classified documents and obstructing the investigation into those documents • illegal efforts to overturn a free and fair election including, but not limited to, a multi-state conspiracy to submit fraudulent electors 4. You want us to believe that Bill Barr's justice department was spying on Trump? What kind of drugs are you on? 1. I only misspoke by saying investigations instead of charges. My point stands. 2. Is it DOJ policy not to spy on or investigate a sitting president? Otherwise your point is null. 3. Yes and what is your point? He was accused of those things. 4. You never heard of the "deep state"? If they operated under the direction of the Attorney General or any other appointed chief they wouldn't be "deep state" by definition. This is farcical I stand by my previous post
|
|