User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:59:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: I'll say it again. Presidents that don't have immunity will be subjected to partisan prosecutions as well to extradition to foreign nations. Obama ran guns to Mexico and some of those guns were used in murders. So Mexico could charge Obama with accessory in dozens/ maybe hundreds of murders. Obama could be charged for accessory to murder of Brian Terry. No statute of limitations on murder charges. I'm looking forward for the former President Biden being extradited to Texas and prosecuted by Ken Paxton for violating Article 4 Section 4. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:05:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ok, so the question still remains. Is an unimpeached (or, impeached but unconvicted) former president susceptible criminal prosecution, or do they enjoy immunity? I guess we'll see soon what the scotus has to say. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Impeachment serves as the method for the legislative branch to hold the executive accountable for misdeeds while in office. They are constitutionally not allowed to criminally prosecute because that power resides in the executive. The removal from office is the only punitive option available to them and by doing so it should allow for a non corrupt new president’s DOJ the ability to investigate the case. Ok, so the question still remains. Is an unimpeached (or, impeached but unconvicted) former president susceptible criminal prosecution, or do they enjoy immunity? I guess we'll see soon what the scotus has to say. I didn't hear all of it, but a good segment of 8-10 questions in a row that I did hear, got to the gist of it... All the conservatives took turns asking questions about how this isn't going to turn into 3rd world retribution process if allowed. The most flamboyant faggot prosecutor that has ever existed had no real answer. It was essentially "just trust us." Super hilarious coming from a literal cocksucker. So they are obviously aware of the ramifications... But they may not care. They didn't care or do anything when the election was stolen, so I see no reason to believe they will do the right thing here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:08:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Honestly, I think arguing that a President can never be criminally prosecuted, and are literally free to operate outside the law, is a much much more dangerous can of worms to open. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Are you willing to open the can of worms in front of you because it might get you elusive win against the orange man? Or do you look at the bigger picture and see what road this could lead us down? Honestly, I think arguing that a President can never be criminally prosecuted, and are literally free to operate outside the law, is a much much more dangerous can of worms to open. LOL |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:10:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Clarence Thomas Asks Jack Smith’s Lawyer If There’s No Presidential Immunity— Even For Official Acts
 Clarence Thomas Asks Jack Smith’s Lawyer If There’s No Presidential Immunity— Even For Official Acts |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:11:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: Do you mean new evidence might have it reclassified as a war crime? Or that Al-Quaeda might consider it a war crime? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: Originally Posted By mcculver5: It can be both. It's one thing until adjudged the other thing. I mean that premeditated killing is always murder and that affirmative defenses like (defense of others, defense of self, advice of counsel, war time activities) are legal defenses to be asserted at trial etc. That's how it works for most people. And, as no one is above the law, a subsequent administrations could charge and force them to assert the defense at trial. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:12:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: But they may not care. They didn't care or do anything when the election was stolen, so I see no reason to believe they will do the right thing here. This is where I’m at. I think they got intimated by the brazen democrat theft…..or they assumed “higher” ground. Either way it’s like the fat lesbians or Jews rioting on behalf of the Muslims. You dumb bitches….they will execute and skull fuck you the first chance they get! |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:19:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. You know you're insulting the box of rocks comparing them to she/it. For shame. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:28:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Do you remember Mike Nifong? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Nothing. Prosecutors enjoy almost absolute immunity. Do you remember Mike Nifong? Do you understand the meaning of the word "almost"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:29:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: In today’s arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today’s world not a hypothetical one. It’s damn clown world stuff but they said it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today’s arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today’s world not a hypothetical one. It’s damn clown world stuff but they said it. This is how the Communists and technocrats think. You must follow the "expert" advice. It always works out well right? I mean Fauci did a bang up job. And so long as your elected stoog;does whatever the: doctor, lawyer, General or other "expert" the globalist deep state prescribes, says, they will be fine. If not, enjoy the Gulags with the other political prisoners. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:32:10 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:59:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I didn't hear all of it, but a good segment of 8-10 questions in a row that I did hear, got to the gist of it... All the conservatives took turns asking questions about how this isn't going to turn into 3rd world retribution process if allowed. The most flamboyant faggot prosecutor that has ever existed had no real answer. It was essentially "just trust us." Super hilarious coming from a literal cocksucker. So they are obviously aware of the ramifications... But they may not care. They didn't care or do anything when the election was stolen, so I see no reason to believe they will do the right thing here. "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:06:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I didn't hear all of it, but a good segment of 8-10 questions in a row that I did hear, got to the gist of it... All the conservatives took turns asking questions about how this isn't going to turn into 3rd world retribution process if allowed. The most flamboyant faggot prosecutor that has ever existed had no real answer. It was essentially "just trust us." Super hilarious coming from a literal cocksucker. So they are obviously aware of the ramifications... But they may not care. They didn't care or do anything when the election was stolen, so I see no reason to believe they will do the right thing here. "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. Good vs evil. Right vs wrong. Justice vs injustice. I know the left struggles with this concept, as they think they can do whatever they want to futher their agenda. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:08:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:12:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. I won’t say I’m immune  from the retribution mindset. Especially when viewed from the prism of the select prosecutions we’ve seen over the past few years. I’m honestly hoping for something or someone to put an end to the use of lawfare that we see. To continue down the road we are heading down will not have a happy ending regardless of which side we are personally cheerleading.
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:13:15 PM EDT
[#15]
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.
look at this this way, once the electoral college voted, trump lost. he should have let it go. he would have been a shoe-in for 2024. but his ego wouldnt let him and he's been whinning about it ever since and the dems are out to destroy the guy when they should just let sleeping dogs lie. the result is a severely divided nation with crazy folks on both sides. and nothing good will come of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:22:10 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Ahhh, well if the shoe fits. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:22:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. look at this this way, once the electoral college voted, trump lost. he should have let it go. he would have been a shoe-in for 2024. but his ego wouldnt let him and he's been whinning about it ever since and the dems are out to destroy the guy when they should just let sleeping dogs lie. the result is a severely divided nation with crazy folks on both sides. and nothing good will come of it. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:58:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:07:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eesmith]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I didn't hear all of it, but a good segment of 8-10 questions in a row that I did hear, got to the gist of it... All the conservatives took turns asking questions about how this isn't going to turn into 3rd world retribution process if allowed. The most flamboyant faggot prosecutor that has ever existed had no real answer. It was essentially "just trust us." Super hilarious coming from a literal cocksucker. So they are obviously aware of the ramifications... But they may not care. They didn't care or do anything when the election was stolen, so I see no reason to believe they will do the right thing here. "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. At the time I was actually glad Trump had decided to not Prosecute Clinton for her obvious crimes once he was elected, I thought it was a fair attempt to lower the temperature. I won't make that mistake again; we're in an escalation spiral where appealing to better natures has failed, so everything from here on out is to the knife. As to the topic of Presidential Immunity, I generally think some sort of QI is a better option than none or total. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:09:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Did Obama act within the law? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Not if he gets indicted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:09:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32274/Screenshot_2024-04-25_at_15-25-11_Suprem-3197798.JPG JFC. Scotus does not "make the law" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:20:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:35:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I didn't hear all of it, but a good segment of 8-10 questions in a row that I did hear, got to the gist of it... All the conservatives took turns asking questions about how this isn't going to turn into 3rd world retribution process if allowed. The most flamboyant faggot prosecutor that has ever existed had no real answer. It was essentially "just trust us." Super hilarious coming from a literal cocksucker. So they are obviously aware of the ramifications... But they may not care. They didn't care or do anything when the election was stolen, so I see no reason to believe they will do the right thing here. "I'll be your retribution " And "I hope Trump becomes President and rains holy hell on the 'swamp'!" It is sorta fun and weird seeing you guys all on the President Trump using his Office to attack his politucal enemies. But are very concerned about it in this specific thread. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:38:18 PM EDT
[#24]
I fucking hope Ken Paxton is sharpening his pencils right now, just in case.
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:54:37 PM EDT
[#25]
The Supreme Court should punt on trying to define the limit of Presidential Immunity and say the special prosecutor who was a private citizen and was not confirmed the the Senate was illegally appointed and his indictments are invalid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:57:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not if he gets indicted. So an indictment alone is sufficient to determine if one acted within the law now? Interesting. It’s a long and dry read, but you’d be hard pressed to argue that given DOJ legal analysis explaining why a strike on an AQ terrorist in Yemen, who just so happens to hold American citizenship, is perfectly legal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/23/National-Security/Graphics/memodrones.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:04:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Smith’s lawyer insisted that there are enough “checks and balances” to prevent partisan, vindictive prosecutions of former Presidents.
Did he realize that he was living it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:06:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: So an indictment alone is sufficient to determine if one acted within the law now? Interesting. ] Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not if he gets indicted. So an indictment alone is sufficient to determine if one acted within the law now? Interesting. ] 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 |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:07:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. And how do we get more accountability? By voting harder? Maybe it will be Low_Country goes to Washington? Like Jimmy Stewart? Lol, it's fuckin rotten and you or me ain't fixing shit. Sometimes I forgot people like you still ACTUALLY believe in the system. It's kinda sad. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:14:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If a prosecutor can convince a grand jury probably cause exists they broke the law with money laundering schemes, etc., they deserve to face criminal charges as well. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By sixnine: Where do you stand on all the law breaking being done by Biden and his son? If a prosecutor can convince a grand jury probably cause exists they broke the law with money laundering schemes, etc., they deserve to face criminal charges as well. Can you even see from the high horse you ride around on? Seriously? Are you even in reality? What elected officials in your fuckin LIFETIME has been shit on like Trump? And your gonna tell me he deserves it for his corruption but not all those other fuckers? Obama, Clinton, LBJ ? You are a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:15:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Ok, so again--did Obama act within the law? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:21:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Smith’s lawyer insisted that there are enough “checks and balances” to prevent partisan, vindictive prosecutions of former Presidents. Did he realize that he was living it? I have concluded that the leaders of the Democratic Party are aware of, and depend upon the ignorance, gullibility and stupidity of their base. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:23:12 PM EDT
[#33]
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? I wonder how he views Waco? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:27:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gspointer: I have concluded that FIFY. Otherwise, I agree. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:31:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ArmyInfantryVet]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:32:10 PM EDT
[#36]
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? What amount of due process was due to an America-hating Al Qaeda leader and terrorist, with blood on his hands, living and hiding in Yemen, that he didn’t get? Is that guy worth risking American lives to try and capture to bring back home and throw in a courtroom? I mean, all the evidence on who he was and what he did was out there already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:32:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceChimp: Tagged for the eventual 20 page thread slide by the_crew where they keep repeating the same wrong things over and over and pretend they haven't been shot down dozens of times already. Cultism is not a shoot down. TDS goes both ways. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:36:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: 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? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:37:43 PM EDT
[#39]
I see the same couple of Army badged, N_T forum sliders are in here making arguments more embarrassing than the partisan hacks going after Trump...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:37:48 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CTM1: You do know that people in the DOJ stated they know that President Trump honestly believed there was fraud in the 2020 election. So if the President believed it, is he not the final authority on the matter and thus how he wants to pursue it. Did President Trump himself storm the Capitol on Jan 6th? Nope. He said we are going peacefully and patriotically march. A DOJ official even said half of President Trump's legal team said there was no evidence and the other half said there was. I see the SC is saying it was the political lawyers that said there was fraud. Curious, did AG Barr or any other DOJ official tell President Trump that the political lawyers have no say and if you listen to them it opens you up to criminal prosecution? Did President Trump preclude a single vote from being counted? Nope. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CTM1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? You do know that people in the DOJ stated they know that President Trump honestly believed there was fraud in the 2020 election. So if the President believed it, is he not the final authority on the matter and thus how he wants to pursue it. Did President Trump himself storm the Capitol on Jan 6th? Nope. He said we are going peacefully and patriotically march. A DOJ official even said half of President Trump's legal team said there was no evidence and the other half said there was. I see the SC is saying it was the political lawyers that said there was fraud. Curious, did AG Barr or any other DOJ official tell President Trump that the political lawyers have no say and if you listen to them it opens you up to criminal prosecution? Did President Trump preclude a single vote from being counted? Nope. Do yourself a favor and read the indictment. Then you'll realize why everything you're saying is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:38:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: I'm really not following this, are you saying we should be able to tie up a President in legal battles without impeaching them? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today's arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today's world not a hypothetical one. It's damn clown world stuff but they said it. Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. I'm really not following this, are you saying we should be able to tie up a President in legal battles without impeaching them? YES. And that's exactly what they've done in the past even though there is long standing DOJ policy against prosecuting presidents. They can't stop doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:39:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eesmith]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chronium76: And how do we get more accountability? By voting harder? Maybe it will be Low_Country goes to Washington? Like Jimmy Stewart? Lol, it's fuckin rotten and you or me ain't fixing shit. Sometimes I forgot people like you still ACTUALLY believe in the system. It's kinda sad. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chronium76: Originally Posted By Low_Country: I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. And how do we get more accountability? By voting harder? Maybe it will be Low_Country goes to Washington? Like Jimmy Stewart? Lol, it's fuckin rotten and you or me ain't fixing shit. Sometimes I forgot people like you still ACTUALLY believe in the system. It's kinda sad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:40:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CTM1: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:41:04 PM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:44:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ArmyInfantryVet]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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  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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:46:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AZ_Mike: The Supreme Court should punt on trying to define the limit of Presidential Immunity and say the special prosecutor who was a private citizen and was not confirmed the the Senate was illegally appointed and his indictments are invalid. Findings of the court Opinion delivered by Missile Geek In this case, the state has attempted to charge a former president with fraud for his conduct surrounding some events during and shortly after a highly contested and peculiar election. Both sides ultimately making varied accusations of fraud. The question we have been asked to answer, is the extent of presidential immunity. We decline to answer except to state that it applies here, if for no other reason than it should always protect presidents from any clearly partisan, frivolous or vexatious accusations. Using the power of the government to attack political rivals is the practice of failing governments, that the court can niether encourage nor tolerate. The defense motion for immunity is granted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:48:02 PM EDT
[#47]
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. I forget which made up and total bullshit case this is... The speech where he told everyone to be peaceful? |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:51:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:53:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Justintime2: I see the same couple of Army badged, N_T forum sliders are in here making arguments more embarrassing than the partisan hacks going after Trump... and the mods. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:55:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: FIFY. Otherwise, I agree. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Gspointer: I have concluded that FIFY. Otherwise, I agree. You're the one that convinced that fella to light himself on fire in protest. |
|
|
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.
Attached File
Attached File