User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:58:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point is that everybody is acting as if it's a guarantee that prosecuting Obama criminally is a slam dunk if there is no immunity. Yet I am quite confident that he didn't do anything that wasn't signed off on by a team of lawyers. The idea that he just obviously broke the law with these actions that people find objectionable is pretty silly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By CTM1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Did Obama act within the law? I guess it is up to who is interpreting the law. The DOJ looked at the hush money payments and apparently did not see a violation of the law but Manhattan DA Bragg has a vastly different interpretation of the law by using a federal law to justify his use of a state law to bring a case. The point is that everybody is acting as if it's a guarantee that prosecuting Obama criminally is a slam dunk if there is no immunity. Yet I am quite confident that he didn't do anything that wasn't signed off on by a team of lawyers. The idea that he just obviously broke the law with these actions that people find objectionable is pretty silly. The Russia collusion case has him so nailed for conspiracy and election tampering. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:59:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MaxxII: Was due process given to American citizens before they ordered to be executed by the President of the United States? Was due process given before they were sentenced to death by the POTUS, and the order was carried out? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MaxxII: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By -daddy: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? *Looks at entire quote tree* Bin Laden wasn't an American citizen. Ok, so again--did Obama act within the law? Was due process given to American citizens before they ordered to be executed by the President of the United States? Was due process given before they were sentenced to death by the POTUS, and the order was carried out? I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:03:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: The Russia collusion case has him so nailed for conspiracy and election tampering. Selling guns to the cartels, pretty much a death sentence not just for Mexicans, but also our own border patrol agent... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:04:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kihn]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: https://gifdb.com/images/high/laugh-j-jonah-jameson-eyes-closed-0qiegcnwpp6ysz1g.gif He's not wrong. If a former President can't be prosecuted, the Special Counsel wouldn't have had the authority to make the case against Trump happen. Jim Jordan was yelling at the other Special Counsel to prosecute President Biden. While he is a sitting POTUS. When Hur spoke to Congress after releasing his report. So clearly there is this cognitive dissonance with some of you people. Where Trump is immune from everything, and Biden needs to go to Prison.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No, the prosecution actually made the case that a President can be prosecuted, because they are prosecuting him. The justices laughed. That review of the legality of targeting Awlaki means nothing, if a prosecutor decides to indict https://gifdb.com/images/high/laugh-j-jonah-jameson-eyes-closed-0qiegcnwpp6ysz1g.gif He's not wrong. If a former President can't be prosecuted, the Special Counsel wouldn't have had the authority to make the case against Trump happen. Jim Jordan was yelling at the other Special Counsel to prosecute President Biden. While he is a sitting POTUS. When Hur spoke to Congress after releasing his report. So clearly there is this cognitive dissonance with some of you people. Where Trump is immune from everything, and Biden needs to go to Prison. Well, the Left is free to have a lot of latitude in interpreting the law for Trump's supposed wrongs (the same things they have engaged in i.e. new slate of electors). It's just flat-out not given consideration for Biden's blatant wrongs (his confession of extortion to get an investigation shut down, so as to not indict the Bidens in infuence-peddling in ukraine, or the IC discrediting Hunter's laptop as a fictitous creation as to not damage his campaign). So there is a difference. A two-tiered difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:07:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FlashMan-7k]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eesmith: We're going to have to find any and all pretexts to put thousands of senior Democratic officials, activists , and donors in prison, for starters. That's just it. We don't and never did need pretext. We don't have to go against the rules. We don't have to break any laws or set any precedents. All you have to do is stick strictly to the text of the cotus, and the text of the cotus is the meaning of it as written according the grammar and definition from the time of it's writing. Not one iota less not one iota more courts and cour precedent cannot change this meaning. The courts and their precdent and their interpretation is not the law. The meaning of the text of cotus is. If the courts go against this, they are ruling illegally and should be tried and punished as such by the other branches. Toss the whole corrupt rotting structure of interpretation that does not follow those rules in the incenrator where it belongs. Oh, and only amendments that passed according to the rules of amendment in cotus are a part of cotus, so any structure leaning on amendments that did not pass are de jure and defacto illegal and to be tossed in the same incenerator and all contracts and etc. erected by them are null and void because they were null and void at the time of their making. For an absolute low hanging fruit stater, this means no 14th. Kiss incorporation goodbye along with all it's attendant evils (and the very few goods). Huge jump up in federalism. Abjectly REFUSE to allow the fedgov to go outside of those rules, and use those rules to give the proper deserved punishment to those who break them. Let the teenager scream, try and light the curtains on fire, and grab the kitchen knife, it doesn't matter. If they scream you restrain them and duct tape their mouths shut. If they try and light the curtains on fire you stop them however they make it necessary. If they try and stab you use deadly force on them to stop them, and if they survive, you try them as attempted murders. We don't have to have a revolution. We don't have to go draconian. We don't have to have a war. We don't need to toss out rule of law and engage in partiality. Pick up the rules and USE THEM. Exclude EVERYTHING the rules exclude. Watch 99.999999% of everything the fedgov does evaporate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:08:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By MaxxII: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By -daddy: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? *Looks at entire quote tree* Bin Laden wasn't an American citizen. Ok, so again--did Obama act within the law? Was due process given to American citizens before they ordered to be executed by the President of the United States? Was due process given before they were sentenced to death by the POTUS, and the order was carried out? I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. I'm no Obama lover, but I have no problem with what happened to those scum bags. Joining and living with a known international terrorist organization overseas, that has killed many Americans, is equivalent to killing due to a violent crime in progress / fleeing felon. I don't have any problem with cops shooting those shit bag criminals, nor do I have a problem with DoD doing it overseas. Even if it was approved by a retarded fuckhead of a president. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:08:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKSnowRider: Selling guns to the cartels, pretty much a death sentence not just for Mexicans, but also our own border patrol agent... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKSnowRider: Originally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: The Russia collusion case has him so nailed for conspiracy and election tampering. Selling guns to the cartels, pretty much a death sentence not just for Mexicans, but also our own border patrol agent... Yep. Plenty to have him sitting in court for. But he is immune. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:09:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: But no president has ever had to undergo this level of political persecution either. The tradition of our entire Republic has been to let sleeping dogs lie after a president has left office. The 3rd world bananna republic level of political persecution we have now is unprecidented in our nation's history. Plus the weaponization of government agencies against their own citizens Examples need to be made here. SEVERE, attention getting examples |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:10:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DK-Prof]
[#9]
[Deleted]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:11:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:16:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Communists aren't citizens. They aren't even people. History says that if we don't kill or put the Commies in jail, they would just do it to themselves in the next 10-20 years anyway. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By eesmith: We're going to have to find any and all pretexts to put thousands of senior Democratic officials, activists , and donors in prison, for starters. That's just it. We don't and never did need pretext. We don't have to go against the rules. We don't have to break any laws or set any precedents. All you have to do is stick strictly to the text of the cotus, and the text of the cotus is the meaning of it as written and the grammar and definition from the time of it's writing. Not one iota less not one iota more courts and cour precedent cannot change this meaning. Toss the whole corrupt rotting structure of interpretation that does not follow those rules in the incenrator where it belongs. Oh, and only amendments that passed according to the rules of amendment in cotus are a part of cotus, so any structure leaning on amendments that did not pass are de jure and defacto illegal and to be tossed in the same incenerator and all contracts and etc. erected by them are null and void because they were null and void at the time of their making. For an absolute low hanging fruit stater, this means no 14th. Kiss incorporation goodbye along with all it's attendant evils (and the very few goods). Huge jump up in federalism. Abjectly REFUSE to allow the fedgov to go outside of those rules, and use those rules to give the proper deserved punishment to those who break them. Let the teenager scream, try and light the curtains on fire, and grab the kitchen knife, it doesn't matter. If they scream you restrain them and duct tape their mouths shut. If they try and light the curtains on fire you stop them however they make it necessary. If they try and stab you use deadly force on them to stop them, and if they survive, you try them as attempted murders. We don't have to have a revolution. We don't have to go draconian. We don't have to have a war. We don't need to toss out rule of law and engage in partiality. Pick up the rules and USE THEM. Exclude EVERYTHING the rules exclude. Watch 99.999999% of everything the fedgov does evaporate. Communists aren't citizens. They aren't even people. History says that if we don't kill or put the Commies in jail, they would just do it to themselves in the next 10-20 years anyway. That's rose colored glasses. Humans and even american citizens can be that bad. Your kids can leave your house rock ribbed and conservative and come back actual communists. We have to lay aside these failed tropes and face ugly reality if we are going to get through. We have the option of enforcing the rules. We also have the option of picking up our ball and bad and leaving the game, because nobody is enforcing the rules. We have our states and counties. They can be built into refuges and used to push back. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:19:45 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Imzadi: I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:25:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn't deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Imzadi: I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn't deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. He was an enemy combatant, as he joined or lead a organization that was at war with the US. Personally.... it'd of been better to arrest him. But you couldn't send the FBI to go make an arrest.. they'd of got slaughtered lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:26:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. I mean, I get it. But the totality of the circumstances were considered, advice was solicited, and a determination was made in consultation with everybody who needed to have a say. One of the charges of the executive branch, and certainly the CinC, is to protect America. Awlaki was an enemy of America, despite having been born here. Killing him was a win. So respectfully, find the hypothetical without merit. Now, F&F? I need to refresh myself on the specifics, but I’ve long believed Holder should be called to account for the Americans he killed. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:26:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: If the president ordered the military to off congress members and was successful then we've got a real deal maniac and an army that our justice system wouldn't be able to take down. The hypotheticals are getting absurd. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By st0newall: already said this but watch.. either they will return it to the lower court of find some extremely narrow point of law to rule on. its a fuckin mind field of constitutional gotchas. it took trump doing absolutely crazy shit claiming he was cheated but not able to prove a single point and the dems deciding to attempt to nail trumps ass to the wall, the first time ever this sort of action has been taken against an ex-president. both sides have lost their minds. I think you can't possibly predict what a President might do in the future. Just like no one thought a former US President would argue his actions as a Past President and Future President were/are unimpeachable; no pun intended. I think it comes to conditional immunity, and common sense in the Court. Like if a President all of a sudden is hit with a big crisis. He has real limited time to act, and imperfect and partial intelligence.... if he ended up making a bad call, I think it would qualify him for immunity. But OTOH, his team is saying total immunity. And you rest the existence of the Constitutional Republic on him being convicted by a POLITICAL body, that probably took the majority on election day with him. Or hope he just doesn't have the military kill or arrest senators and House members before a Articles of Impeachment can even be draft...... well that's utterly nuts.  If the president ordered the military to off congress members and was successful then we've got a real deal maniac and an army that our justice system wouldn't be able to take down. The hypotheticals are getting absurd. history is replete with examples of such absurd hypotheticals. IF trump had been a military leader with a solid military following he could have used that influence to remain in office somehow. i bet if he had had such powers we would have transitioned from a constitutional republic to a dictatorship. this is normally how many nations have progressed. i wonder how many here would accept such a situation if it promised to rid this country of all the liberal and communist influences. after all many here have hinted at it being time to pop pmags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:30:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:33:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes Yes. But killing foreign enemies in terrorist organizations on foreign soil who have pledged ‘death to America’ ain’t a crime |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:34:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes Gee it might seem potus and people in fedgov take oaths to some unknown little heard of document or something and that we could justly give them what they deserve for breaking those oaths. So, if you haven't broken that oath, that means the punishments for breaking it couldn't legally be used against you, and people who abuse it to do such would themselves be legally open to being punished for abusing that. *cough* |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:37:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes So Hillary should be in jail for security violations then right? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:40:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: He hasnt been indicted for simply saying it was fraudulent. Lol. There is contrary testimony evidence about that anyway. Where he was ready to concede that he lost, knew that he lost, and got convinced by his Roger Stone circle of quacks to not concede, and then insisted was stolen. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: What politicians have had their house raided by the FBI? Who has 87 civil and criminal nothing burger charges brought to courts? Who was caught with TS info on her private server and found by the FBI to be above the law? But now we wanna say Trump needs to go to jail, because he called a fraudulent election a fraud. He hasnt been indicted for simply saying it was fraudulent. Lol. There is contrary testimony evidence about that anyway. Where he was ready to concede that he lost, knew that he lost, and got convinced by his Roger Stone circle of quacks to not concede, and then insisted was stolen. So it is illegal to have someone change your mind? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:42:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: So Hillary should be in jail for security violations then right? When Trump told her “because you’d be in jail”, he earned my vote on the spot. Unequivocally. The reality years later, has left me somewhat unsatisfied. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:44:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Imzadi: I don't support it, but the shit heads in the Obama administration said that due process was required. They said that there was no requirement for judicial due process. So the fact that five college students decided that somebody needed to die was enough. Please make the argument than Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t deserve to die in the most immediate way possible, by the most effective means at our disposal, without risking any additional American lives. Simple. He was a US citizen and wasn't on the battle field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:47:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: So Hillary should be in jail for security violations then right? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes So Hillary should be in jail for security violations then right?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:49:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I mean, I get it. But the totality of the circumstances were considered, advice was solicited, and a determination was made in consultation with everybody who needed to have a say. One of the charges of the executive branch, and certainly the CinC, is to protect America. Awlaki was an enemy of America, despite having been born here. Killing him was a win. So respectfully, find the hypothetical without merit. Now, F&F? I need to refresh myself on the specifics, but I’ve long believed Holder should be called to account for the Americans he killed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Deserving has nothing to do with it. Not really the question. The question is whether someone might retrospectively decide to prosecute a political opponent for the acts done while he/she was the president. The example of Mr. Al-Awalki is a hypothetical situation that some may find objectionable. Can't get past the example? Do fast and furious. I mean, I get it. But the totality of the circumstances were considered, advice was solicited, and a determination was made in consultation with everybody who needed to have a say. One of the charges of the executive branch, and certainly the CinC, is to protect America. Awlaki was an enemy of America, despite having been born here. Killing him was a win. So respectfully, find the hypothetical without merit. Now, F&F? I need to refresh myself on the specifics, but I’ve long believed Holder should be called to account for the Americans he killed. You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:52:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: When Trump told her “because you’d be in jail”, he earned my vote on the spot. Unequivocally. The reality years later, has left me somewhat unsatisfied. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: So Hillary should be in jail for security violations then right? When Trump told her “because you’d be in jail”, he earned my vote on the spot. Unequivocally. The reality years later, has left me somewhat unsatisfied. It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. I hated Obama, Hillary, Biden and all their whores in DC. There was a time I hoped and thought that they should be arrested. But I've matured enough to realize that no one wins at the 3rd world banana Republic games. Corruption at the highest levels of our government is not new. Why is there virtually no history of prosecution of cabinet members or POTUS? The Democrats are the dumbest and most power hungry shithead politicians in US history. They've proven it several ways, this attempted power grab without regard to consequence, is just the most recent. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:53:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:54:13 PM EDT
[#27]
so just the same c********** as always
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:55:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. I hated Obama, Hillary, Biden and all their whores in DC. There was a time I hoped and thought that they should be arrested. But I've matured enough to realize that no one wins at the 3rd world banana Republic games. Corruption at the highest levels of our government is not new. Why is there virtually no history of prosecution of cabinet members or POTUS? The Democrats are the dumbest and most power hungry shithead politicians in US history. They've proven it several ways, this attempted power grab without regard to consequence, is just the most recent. Ya know, I don’t really care for most of your posts. But I’ll chew on this one a time or two, because I don’t find much to disagree with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:02:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. I hated Obama, Hillary, Biden and all their whores in DC. There was a time I hoped and thought that they should be arrested. But I've matured enough to realize that no one wins at the 3rd world banana Republic games. Corruption at the highest levels of our government is not new. Why is there virtually no history of prosecution of cabinet members or POTUS? The Democrats are the dumbest and most power hungry shithead politicians in US history. They've proven it several ways, this attempted power grab without regard to consequence, is just the most recent. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: So Hillary should be in jail for security violations then right? When Trump told her “because you’d be in jail”, he earned my vote on the spot. Unequivocally. The reality years later, has left me somewhat unsatisfied. It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. I hated Obama, Hillary, Biden and all their whores in DC. There was a time I hoped and thought that they should be arrested. But I've matured enough to realize that no one wins at the 3rd world banana Republic games. Corruption at the highest levels of our government is not new. Why is there virtually no history of prosecution of cabinet members or POTUS? The Democrats are the dumbest and most power hungry shithead politicians in US history. They've proven it several ways, this attempted power grab without regard to consequence, is just the most recent. Exactly right. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:12:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. So you love the place? The people? But not the due process of law? I happen to agree with you concerning terrorists, so don't get bent. But the point is that this is a dark path that doesn't stop with political heads. Given my immutable racial characteristics, my party affiliation, my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and my occasional credit card purchase at Cabela's, the DOJ of my great nation considers me a threat which should be monitored. Prosecuting political enemies never stops. And it only gets worse. This is the box the Democrats want to open. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:18:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I forget which made up and total bullshit case this is... The speech where he told everyone to be peaceful? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: What politicians have had their house raided by the FBI? Who has 87 civil and criminal nothing burger charges brought to courts? Who was caught with TS info on her private server and found by the FBI to be above the law? But now we wanna say Trump needs to go to jail, because he called a fraudulent election a fraud. He hasnt been indicted for simply saying it was fraudulent. Lol. There is contrary testimony evidence about that anyway. Where he was ready to concede that he lost, knew that he lost, and got convinced by his Roger Stone circle of quacks to not concede, and then insisted was stolen. I forget which made up and total bullshit case this is... The speech where he told everyone to be peaceful? Sounds like you haven't read the indictment. Might I suggest spending a few minutes educating yourself? https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:18:53 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: So you love the place? The people? But not the due process of law? I happen to agree with you concerning terrorists, so don't get bent. But the point is that this is a dark path that doesn't stop with political heads. Given my immutable racial characteristics, my party affiliation, my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and my occasional credit card purchase at Cabela's, the DOJ of my great nation considers me a threat which should be monitored. Prosecuting political enemies never stops. And it only gets worse. This is the box the Democrats want to open. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. So you love the place? The people? But not the due process of law? I happen to agree with you concerning terrorists, so don't get bent. But the point is that this is a dark path that doesn't stop with political heads. Given my immutable racial characteristics, my party affiliation, my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and my occasional credit card purchase at Cabela's, the DOJ of my great nation considers me a threat which should be monitored. Prosecuting political enemies never stops. And it only gets worse. This is the box the Democrats want to open. Stalin's purges box is particularly spicy. Ray Charles saw this coming long ago. Many during the Clinton admin. Others during Obama. All but the worst NPCs can see it now. Marxist are highly predictable and very consistent with the playbook. All that changes are the made up terms. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:20:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. How dare I argue in favor of due process? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:23:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: That's just it. We don't and never did need pretext. We don't have to go against the rules. We don't have to break any laws or set any precedents. All you have to do is stick strictly to the text of the cotus, and the text of the cotus is the meaning of it as written according the grammar and definition from the time of it's writing. Not one iota less not one iota more courts and cour precedent cannot change this meaning. The courts and their precdent and their interpretation is not the law. The meaning of the text of cotus is. If the courts go against this, they are ruling illegally and should be tried and punished as such by the other branches. Toss the whole corrupt rotting structure of interpretation that does not follow those rules in the incenrator where it belongs. Oh, and only amendments that passed according to the rules of amendment in cotus are a part of cotus, so any structure leaning on amendments that did not pass are de jure and defacto illegal and to be tossed in the same incenerator and all contracts and etc. erected by them are null and void because they were null and void at the time of their making. For an absolute low hanging fruit stater, this means no 14th. Kiss incorporation goodbye along with all it's attendant evils (and the very few goods). Huge jump up in federalism. Abjectly REFUSE to allow the fedgov to go outside of those rules, and use those rules to give the proper deserved punishment to those who break them. Let the teenager scream, try and light the curtains on fire, and grab the kitchen knife, it doesn't matter. If they scream you restrain them and duct tape their mouths shut. If they try and light the curtains on fire you stop them however they make it necessary. If they try and stab you use deadly force on them to stop them, and if they survive, you try them as attempted murders. We don't have to have a revolution. We don't have to go draconian. We don't have to have a war. We don't need to toss out rule of law and engage in partiality. Pick up the rules and USE THEM. Exclude EVERYTHING the rules exclude. Watch 99.999999% of everything the fedgov does evaporate. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By eesmith: We're going to have to find any and all pretexts to put thousands of senior Democratic officials, activists , and donors in prison, for starters. That's just it. We don't and never did need pretext. We don't have to go against the rules. We don't have to break any laws or set any precedents. All you have to do is stick strictly to the text of the cotus, and the text of the cotus is the meaning of it as written according the grammar and definition from the time of it's writing. Not one iota less not one iota more courts and cour precedent cannot change this meaning. The courts and their precdent and their interpretation is not the law. The meaning of the text of cotus is. If the courts go against this, they are ruling illegally and should be tried and punished as such by the other branches. Toss the whole corrupt rotting structure of interpretation that does not follow those rules in the incenrator where it belongs. Oh, and only amendments that passed according to the rules of amendment in cotus are a part of cotus, so any structure leaning on amendments that did not pass are de jure and defacto illegal and to be tossed in the same incenerator and all contracts and etc. erected by them are null and void because they were null and void at the time of their making. For an absolute low hanging fruit stater, this means no 14th. Kiss incorporation goodbye along with all it's attendant evils (and the very few goods). Huge jump up in federalism. Abjectly REFUSE to allow the fedgov to go outside of those rules, and use those rules to give the proper deserved punishment to those who break them. Let the teenager scream, try and light the curtains on fire, and grab the kitchen knife, it doesn't matter. If they scream you restrain them and duct tape their mouths shut. If they try and light the curtains on fire you stop them however they make it necessary. If they try and stab you use deadly force on them to stop them, and if they survive, you try them as attempted murders. We don't have to have a revolution. We don't have to go draconian. We don't have to have a war. We don't need to toss out rule of law and engage in partiality. Pick up the rules and USE THEM. Exclude EVERYTHING the rules exclude. Watch 99.999999% of everything the fedgov does evaporate. Dude... you are in deeeeeeeeeeeep....  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:24:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Stalin's purges box is particularly spicy. Ray Charles saw this coming long ago. Many during the Clinton admin. Others during Obama. All but the worst NPCs can see it now. Marxist are highly predictable and very consistent with the playbook. All that changes are the made up terms. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. So you love the place? The people? But not the due process of law? I happen to agree with you concerning terrorists, so don't get bent. But the point is that this is a dark path that doesn't stop with political heads. Given my immutable racial characteristics, my party affiliation, my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and my occasional credit card purchase at Cabela's, the DOJ of my great nation considers me a threat which should be monitored. Prosecuting political enemies never stops. And it only gets worse. This is the box the Democrats want to open. Stalin's purges box is particularly spicy. Ray Charles saw this coming long ago. Many during the Clinton admin. Others during Obama. All but the worst NPCs can see it now. Marxist are highly predictable and very consistent with the playbook. All that changes are the made up terms. It's fairly naked at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:27:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: So you love the place? The people? But not the due process of law? I happen to agree with you concerning terrorists, so don't get bent. But the point is that this is a dark path that doesn't stop with political heads. Given my immutable racial characteristics, my party affiliation, my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and my occasional credit card purchase at Cabela's, the DOJ of my great nation considers me a threat which should be monitored. Prosecuting political enemies never stops. And it only gets worse. This is the box the Democrats want to open. There is this persistent misconception that believing Trump deserves to be in prison must make you a Democrat or a supporter of their causes. And it’s completely false. I don’t have a single ally or representative who embraces my beliefs in our federal government these days. Can somebody say “fuck Trump” and “fuck Biden” while also saying “fuck our two party system” at the same time? What would that make such an individual? How should they be categorized? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:31:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Sounds like you haven't read the indictment. Might I suggest spending a few minutes educating yourself? https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: What politicians have had their house raided by the FBI? Who has 87 civil and criminal nothing burger charges brought to courts? Who was caught with TS info on her private server and found by the FBI to be above the law? But now we wanna say Trump needs to go to jail, because he called a fraudulent election a fraud. He hasnt been indicted for simply saying it was fraudulent. Lol. There is contrary testimony evidence about that anyway. Where he was ready to concede that he lost, knew that he lost, and got convinced by his Roger Stone circle of quacks to not concede, and then insisted was stolen. I forget which made up and total bullshit case this is... The speech where he told everyone to be peaceful? Sounds like you haven't read the indictment. Might I suggest spending a few minutes educating yourself? https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment i had forgotten about this brand of nonsense. That's hilarious. What's even funnier is you think this garbage adds credibility to your position.  "Hey he tried to steal back the election we had already stolen... Arrest that man" Fucking clown world. Any honest judge worth a fuck would summarily dismiss and throw that nonsense out on it's ass. Then get the wannabe prosecutor fired. It reads like something written by a spiteful ex girlfriend. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:33:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: How dare I argue in favor of due process? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. How dare I argue in favor of due process? Is it denial of due process when cops shoot robbers in the act of robbing a bank and threatening the teller? Because if memory serves, these two things are pretty similar. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:34:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: There is this persistent misconception that believing Trump deserves to be in prison must make you a Democrat or a supporter of their causes. And it’s completely false. I don’t have a single ally or representative who embraces my beliefs in our federal government these days. Can somebody say “fuck Trump” and “fuck Biden” while also saying “fuck our two party system” at the same time? What would that make such an individual? How should they be categorized? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: So you love the place? The people? But not the due process of law? I happen to agree with you concerning terrorists, so don't get bent. But the point is that this is a dark path that doesn't stop with political heads. Given my immutable racial characteristics, my party affiliation, my belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and my occasional credit card purchase at Cabela's, the DOJ of my great nation considers me a threat which should be monitored. Prosecuting political enemies never stops. And it only gets worse. This is the box the Democrats want to open. There is this persistent misconception that believing Trump deserves to be in prison must make you a Democrat or a supporter of their causes. And it’s completely false. I don’t have a single ally or representative who embraces my beliefs in our federal government these days. Can somebody say “fuck Trump” and “fuck Biden” while also saying “fuck our two party system” at the same time? What would that make such an individual? How should they be categorized? Made no such assumption in my post. Though you and the Democrats both want to open the prosecution of political enemies box, that does not make you a Democrat. You could be a Marxist a Libertarian or whatever, don't care and it's irrelevant. Your position on this question happens to line up with the Democrats at the moment. It's a dark path in my estimation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:36:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. He's not charged in that case for anything done as president. If he really did declassify the documents when he had the power to do so maybe he wouldn't be charged. But that didn't happen so what's your point and how is it relevant? It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. Are you implying that self-pardoning is a thing? Marbury vs Madison is pretty clear about how the president is subject to the law and judicial review. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:43:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: He's not charged in that case for anything done as president. If he really did declassify the documents when he had the power to do so maybe he wouldn't be charged. But that didn't happen so what's your point and how is it relevant? Are you implying that self-pardoning is a thing? Marbury vs Madison is pretty clear about how the president is subject to the law and judicial review. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. He's not charged in that case for anything done as president. If he really did declassify the documents when he had the power to do so maybe he wouldn't be charged. But that didn't happen so what's your point and how is it relevant? It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. Are you implying that self-pardoning is a thing? Marbury vs Madison is pretty clear about how the president is subject to the law and judicial review. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The first example is discussing the Hillary situation. It's not a hypothetical, nor my opinion. The FBI published a report and that's essentially what it said. I'm not playing a gotcha game with the details of immunity or pardon. To be honest, I'm no expert on that stuff. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that going after the president or former president because of partisan disagreement is a terrible precedent to set. Breathtakingly stupid, even for the Washington Marxists you so admire. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:10:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By gotigers: 5-4 One of the soft conservatives, probably Roberts, will vote with liberals. Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world you must not have been paying attention, Obama and Holder claimed the right to do exactly that, and no one cared. Clown world indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:58:17 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: The first example is discussing the Hillary situation. It's not a hypothetical, nor my opinion. The FBI published a report and that's essentially what it said. I'm not playing a gotcha game with the details of immunity or pardon. To be honest, I'm no expert on that stuff. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that going after the president or former president because of partisan disagreement is a terrible precedent to set. Breathtakingly stupid, even for the Washington Marxists you so admire. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. He's not charged in that case for anything done as president. If he really did declassify the documents when he had the power to do so maybe he wouldn't be charged. But that didn't happen so what's your point and how is it relevant? It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. Are you implying that self-pardoning is a thing? Marbury vs Madison is pretty clear about how the president is subject to the law and judicial review. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The first example is discussing the Hillary situation. It's not a hypothetical, nor my opinion. The FBI published a report and that's essentially what it said. I'm not playing a gotcha game with the details of immunity or pardon. To be honest, I'm no expert on that stuff. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that going after the president or former president because of partisan disagreement is a terrible precedent to set. Breathtakingly stupid, even for the Washington Marxists you so admire. We can certainly agree that it would be better if this wasn't happening. You seem to see a nefarious conspiracy behind all of it. I see a breathtakingly malignant narcissistic sociopath who has trampled the norms and customs of proper behavior of government officials who take their oath and duties and responsibilities seriously and who completely overwhelmed the ability of the guardrails to contain him. If this guy shouldn't be held accountable for a very small fraction of his unacceptable behavior then it means the President really is above the law, and I don't think either of us really want that regardless of what party he comes from. He has forced this to happen by making so many bad decisions, all of which were easily avoidable simply by behaving like a sane responsible adult, and he was advised to do so many times by competent people who he ignored. Biden & Co are not the problem here, the problem is one man named Donald Trump. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:12:55 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: We can certainly agree that it would be better if this wasn't happening. You seem to see a nefarious conspiracy behind all of it. I see a breathtakingly malignant narcissistic sociopath who has trampled the norms and customs of proper behavior of government officials who take their oath and duties and responsibilities seriously and who completely overwhelmed the ability of the guardrails to contain him. If this guy shouldn't be held accountable for a very small fraction of his unacceptable behavior then it means the President really is above the law, and I don't think either of us really want that regardless of what party he comes from. He has forced this to happen by making so many bad decisions, all of which were easily avoidable simply by behaving like a sane responsible adult, and he was advised to do so many times by competent people who he ignored. Biden & Co are not the problem here, the problem is one man named Donald Trump. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. He's not charged in that case for anything done as president. If he really did declassify the documents when he had the power to do so maybe he wouldn't be charged. But that didn't happen so what's your point and how is it relevant? It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. Are you implying that self-pardoning is a thing? Marbury vs Madison is pretty clear about how the president is subject to the law and judicial review. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The first example is discussing the Hillary situation. It's not a hypothetical, nor my opinion. The FBI published a report and that's essentially what it said. I'm not playing a gotcha game with the details of immunity or pardon. To be honest, I'm no expert on that stuff. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that going after the president or former president because of partisan disagreement is a terrible precedent to set. Breathtakingly stupid, even for the Washington Marxists you so admire. We can certainly agree that it would be better if this wasn't happening. You seem to see a nefarious conspiracy behind all of it. I see a breathtakingly malignant narcissistic sociopath who has trampled the norms and customs of proper behavior of government officials who take their oath and duties and responsibilities seriously and who completely overwhelmed the ability of the guardrails to contain him. If this guy shouldn't be held accountable for a very small fraction of his unacceptable behavior then it means the President really is above the law, and I don't think either of us really want that regardless of what party he comes from. He has forced this to happen by making so many bad decisions, all of which were easily avoidable simply by behaving like a sane responsible adult, and he was advised to do so many times by competent people who he ignored. Biden & Co are not the problem here, the problem is one man named Donald Trump. Obvious and open partisan prosecution of political enemies is not a hidden conspiracy, this time. That was the faux Russia collusion nonsense that was the actual conspiracy. I don't know how you got "conspiracy" from any of my posts. They've done everything in the open here. It's plain to see a dozen different ways. Ray Charles can see it. To say that Trump forced this idiotic and banana Republic attempt at prosecution is laughable. Every president and nearly every cabinet member in recent history is equally prosecutable. Show me the man or woman and I'll show you the crime. You yourself confused the Mar Lago bullshit raid with the Hillary server situation. But you've shut up your advocating for prosecution in that circumstance, when it's now discussed as about her vs him. Why is that? Maybe we should arrest hillary, trump and Biden for their duck ups with handling ts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:36:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Obvious and open partisan prosecution of political enemies is not a hidden conspiracy, this time. That was the faux Russia collusion nonsense that was the actual conspiracy. I don't know how you got "conspiracy" from any of my posts. They've done everything in the open here. It's plain to see a dozen different ways. Ray Charles can see it. To say that Trump forced this idiotic and banana Republic attempt at prosecution is laughable. Every president and nearly every cabinet member in recent history is equally prosecutable. Show me the man or woman and I'll show you the crime. You yourself confused the Mar Lago bullshit raid with the Hillary server situation. But you've shut up your advocating for prosecution in that circumstance, when it's now discussed as about her vs him. Why is that? Maybe we should arrest hillary, trump and Biden for their duck ups with handling ts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: It's real hard to charge the original classification authority with classification handling errors. He's not charged in that case for anything done as president. If he really did declassify the documents when he had the power to do so maybe he wouldn't be charged. But that didn't happen so what's your point and how is it relevant? It's even harder and dumber to try to charge the guy with pardon power with anything other than the most obvious and horrific of crimes. Are you implying that self-pardoning is a thing? Marbury vs Madison is pretty clear about how the president is subject to the law and judicial review. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The first example is discussing the Hillary situation. It's not a hypothetical, nor my opinion. The FBI published a report and that's essentially what it said. I'm not playing a gotcha game with the details of immunity or pardon. To be honest, I'm no expert on that stuff. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that going after the president or former president because of partisan disagreement is a terrible precedent to set. Breathtakingly stupid, even for the Washington Marxists you so admire. We can certainly agree that it would be better if this wasn't happening. You seem to see a nefarious conspiracy behind all of it. I see a breathtakingly malignant narcissistic sociopath who has trampled the norms and customs of proper behavior of government officials who take their oath and duties and responsibilities seriously and who completely overwhelmed the ability of the guardrails to contain him. If this guy shouldn't be held accountable for a very small fraction of his unacceptable behavior then it means the President really is above the law, and I don't think either of us really want that regardless of what party he comes from. He has forced this to happen by making so many bad decisions, all of which were easily avoidable simply by behaving like a sane responsible adult, and he was advised to do so many times by competent people who he ignored. Biden & Co are not the problem here, the problem is one man named Donald Trump. Obvious and open partisan prosecution of political enemies is not a hidden conspiracy, this time. That was the faux Russia collusion nonsense that was the actual conspiracy. I don't know how you got "conspiracy" from any of my posts. They've done everything in the open here. It's plain to see a dozen different ways. Ray Charles can see it. To say that Trump forced this idiotic and banana Republic attempt at prosecution is laughable. Every president and nearly every cabinet member in recent history is equally prosecutable. Show me the man or woman and I'll show you the crime. You yourself confused the Mar Lago bullshit raid with the Hillary server situation. But you've shut up your advocating for prosecution in that circumstance, when it's now discussed as about her vs him. Why is that? Maybe we should arrest hillary, trump and Biden for their duck ups with handling ts. I've not shut up about anything, that was a different thread and I try not to contribute to the inevitable thread sliding where every thread about anything related to Trump always seems to end up mixing it all together. The FBI may have said that about the Hillary saga along the way, but ultimately it wasn't about that--by the time they sorted out the stuff that was labeled but should not have been and the stuff that should have been labeled but wasn't, they couldn't find a single example where she knowingly mishandled classified information. That's why when Trump's DOJ assigned a guy to look into it they never found anything more to talk about. Anyway, I learned a long time ago that you don't really need to be corrupt in DC, you just have to learn how to play the game right. Real life is always more complicated and messy than the clean narratives running rampant in the virtual world. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:42:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Made no such assumption in my post. Though you and the Democrats both want to open the prosecution of political enemies box, that does not make you a Democrat. You could be a Marxist a Libertarian or whatever, don't care and it's irrelevant. Your position on this question happens to line up with the Democrats at the moment. It's a dark path in my estimation. We have a former president who lost re-election, and engaged in illegal activities to try and overturn his failed reelection bid. I don’t support his efforts in doing so. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:16:02 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Yep. Plenty to have him sitting in court for. But he is immune. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Originally Posted By AKSnowRider: Originally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: The Russia collusion case has him so nailed for conspiracy and election tampering. Selling guns to the cartels, pretty much a death sentence not just for Mexicans, but also our own border patrol agent... Yep. Plenty to have him sitting in court for. But he is immune. LOL. The problem is we dont have right wing prosecutors that dont care if hes immune. Run him through and make the court decide if hes immune. Of course he'd have to perp walk, the mug shot, the cash to pay for the legal fight... They wanted to change the rules, make them live by theirs. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:19:12 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Yes. But killing foreign enemies in terrorist organizations on foreign soil who have pledged ‘death to America’ ain’t a crime Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: No the question is should executives be held to account for the crimes committed? I’ll answer yes Yes. But killing foreign enemies in terrorist organizations on foreign soil who have pledged ‘death to America’ ain’t a crime If only we could have faith in what the country declared a terrorist organization anymore. Thats the rub. I have little faith Biden wouldnt have droned OK leadership if they happened to be overseas when the FBI wanted them. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:25:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Is it denial of due process when cops shoot robbers in the act of robbing a bank and threatening the teller? Because if memory serves, these two things are pretty similar. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: You find it without merit. Others won't. Which is the point. Ya know, maybe I have too much love of America in my blood. So never would I really imagine somebody arguing for the rights of a foreign terrorist, an AQ leader, somebody who swore death to America, and has assisted and helped plot multiple terror attacks. But look just a couple posts up, and clearly I underestimated. How dare I argue in favor of due process? Is it denial of due process when cops shoot robbers in the act of robbing a bank and threatening the teller? Because if memory serves, these two things are pretty similar. Since when was it legit for a president to just go around blowing up people in countries we arent at war with, nor have any Congressional approval to initiate an act of war? Add in the trget being a US citizen as a cherry. The US could have tried his ass in abstentia but chose not to bother. Thats a disturbing precedence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 3:11:57 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Simple. He was a US citizen and wasn't on the battle field.  You join a terrorist organization that takes American lives, you deserve to die. You don't get any more "due process" than any other enemy combatant. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
