User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:29:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: M4-AK]
 Trump's SUPREME COURT Oral Arguments on PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY Live Ended. Did they break for lunch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:06:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 6172crew: Bunk, what about standing up for those who knew or thought there was a rigged election? Don't they have a say after the paid for politicians and media say otherwise? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 6172crew: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. If he directed the DOJ to investigate, and they came back and said "this is what we found", it would probably be "official". When his AG says "we investigated and didn't find anything", and then he continues to make unsupported claims (against all advice from his official advisors and legal counsel) and goes so far as to try to get fake elector slates submitted to Congress, it's "personal". Why? The executive is the arbiter of the issue, his people play an advise and consent role, but the executive can--and does all the time-- countermand the wishes of the AG or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the SUrgeon General, etc. Because his actions were in pursuit of personal benefit, not fulfilling his duties as chief executive and enforcer of the law. The President takes an oath to the Constitution and to faithfully execute the Office. Finding some crackpot lawyer who could never get a job working for the government to tell him what he wants to hear, and then acting based on that, is not how a president executes the Office. Bunk, what about standing up for those who knew or thought there was a rigged election? Don't they have a say after the paid for politicians and media say otherwise? The law doesn't care about your feelings. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:06:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: Where do you stand on all the law breaking being done by Biden and his son?  Attached File |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:07:17 PM EDT
[#3]
How about the Cliff Notes on this!..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:11:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Smokey0844]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: If the next President has an attorney general with a differing view than the last one, who wins? Excellent question. I heard that remark and I was wtf did he just say? lol They’re so focused on orange man bad that they can’t use any critical thinking skills to recognize future ramifications of what they’re trying to do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:13:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Did they rule?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:14:55 PM EDT
[#6]
When POTUS is sworn in and gives a speech it should include the people the new administration is charging and a list of their crimes. Spend the next four years prosecuting the former POTUS and all those around him. Toss in a few representatives and senators for extra credit.
That might just slow down the government enough for the rest of us to go about our lives in peace. Actually the next POTUS should play catch up. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama, and Biden. Can’t do Trump as they are taking care of his administration and advisors already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:14:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Did they rule? No. It’s not how they do things. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:15:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: No. It’s not how they do things. So he’s not immune or he is? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:16:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Covertness: When POTUS is sworn in and gives a speech it should include the people the new administration is charging and a list of their crimes. Spend the next four years prosecuting the former POTUS and all those around him. Toss in a few representatives and senators for extra credit. That might just slow down the government enough for the rest of us to go about our lives in peace. Actually the next POTUS should play catch up. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama, and Biden. Can’t do Trump as they are taking care of his administration and advisors already. I think they should call it rehabilitation and televise it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:16:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: So he’s not immune or he is? Are you ok? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:16:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Excellent question. I heard that remark and I was wtf did he just say? lol They’re so focused on orange man bad that they can’t use any critical thinking skills to recognize future ramifications of what they’re trying to do. Snip They’re so focused on orange man bad that they can’t use any critical thinking skills to recognize future ramifications of what they’re trying to do. Yup, and I hope it destroys the corrupt democrats someday. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:17:11 PM EDT
[#12]
The TDS bed wetter's who consume MSM cannot stop trolling and fapping in this tread again. lol. It's hilarious to watch them change not one mind as they devote their waking hours to their political jihad again and again and again.
It's funny to watch those who are constantly wrong (every fucking time) on all things political try to prove how smart they are while they spew TDS MSM talking points as if they are Rachel Madcow or some far left Soros shitbag. They will be up all night and keep bumping this thread until they are proven to be idiots again for the 870th time. lol. They can't stop. TDS truly is a mental illness as they prove. They used to annoy me now they entertain me.  Just an observation...please carry on. |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:17:16 PM EDT
[#13]
We've got you now Blonald BlumpF !!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:18:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smash47: The TDS bed wetter's who consume MSM cannot stop trolling and fapping in this tread again. lol. It's hilarious to watch them change not one mind as they devote their waking hours to their political jihad again and again and again. It's funny to watch those who are constantly wrong (every fucking time) on all things political try to prove how smart they are while they spew TDS MSM talking points as if they are Rachel Madcow or some far left Soros shitbag. They will be up all night and keep bumping this thread until they are proven to be idiots again for the 870th time. lol. They can't stop. TDS truly is a mental illness as they prove. They used to annoy me now they entertain me. Just an observation...please carry on. There’s a couple that I swear must have Jack smiths name all over their pleasure journal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:21:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -daddy: *Looks at entire quote tree* Bin Laden wasn't an American citizen. Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:21:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Question for the group: assuming that impeachment is held as being required for criminal charges, could a future Congress hold an impeachment trial against say Obama for the drone strikes? Like 8 years from now in the timeline.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:22:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:23:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Did they rule? Probably will be at least a few weeks. Should get it in June at the latest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:25:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Are you ok? I’m fine. Went to the news because no one here will give a simple answer. lol They will rule in May or June. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:25:46 PM EDT
[#20]
When the special counsel was spewing about the DOJ being professional and that there are only a few instances of rouge DOJ officials I really wish Thomas or Alito would have said but this very President Trump was in fact the victim of corrupt DOJ officials once before during the Russian Collusion hoax.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:25:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Probably will be at least a few weeks. Should get it in June at the latest. Thanks I was replying to homie a few posts back when you replied. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:25:53 PM EDT
[#22]
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? "No person may be deprived of life, liberty , or property without due process. " |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:25:55 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Probably will be at least a few weeks. Should get it in June at the latest. Probably June, possibly earlier. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:26:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I’m fine. Went to the news because no one here will give a simple answer. lol They will rule in May or June. Good deal. I hadn’t looked into a ruling date yet myself. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:26:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NavyDoc1]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:27:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: If the next President has an attorney general with a differing view than the last one, who wins? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. Well the DOJ does not agree with you. According to them, if Barr told Trump it was ok, he would have full immunity. You would know this if you listened in. If the next President has an attorney general with a differing view than the last one, who wins? This is the problem of holding officials accountable. Nobody can agree on what's right or wrong because they interpret the constitution differently, ignore the constitution, and/or act based on partisan beliefs rather than the law as previously interpreted by the supreme court. Worse yet, activist judges (think Hawaii) can block executive actions or laws, and they aren't held accountable when their decisions are reversed by a higher court. And while that winds its way through the courts, the stay remains in effect. When one side engages in this behavior much more often than their opponents, it creates a real barrier to a functioning government, and skews society their direction. Bingo! Here we are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:27:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Probably June, possibly earlier. Given the situation, it will be earlier. Probably in a couple of weeks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:29:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Question for the group: assuming that impeachment is held as being required for criminal charges, could a future Congress hold an impeachment trial against say Obama for the drone strikes? Like 8 years from now in the timeline. I don’t agree with your assumption, but there is nothing from stopping congress from holding impeachment hearings/votes on the drone strikes. Congress has ceded a lot of the power and oversight to the executive branch following WW2 but if they can prove he ordered a strike that isn’t covered under those provisions, yes it would be an impeachable offense. One that did fall under those provisions is going to an official act and perfectly legal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:29:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: "No person may be deprived of life, liberty , or property without due process. " Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: 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? "No person may be deprived of life, liberty , or property without due process. " Again, did he act within the law? They were embedding lawyers in combat everywhere. You don't think a team of lawyers was reviewing and approving before any of that happened? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:31:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock: Given the situation, it will be earlier. Probably in a couple of weeks. Yeah I would guess the draft is largely complete already. The oral arguments aren’t going to be doing much lifting on this one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:33:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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  How much of that did Hillary do? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:33:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Nixon didn't orchestrate Watergate nor was that ever the accusation nor was he ever criminally prosecuted. He would have been if not for Fords pardon. He would have been impeached and then criminally charged by the DOJ. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:36:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Question for the group: assuming that impeachment is held as being required for criminal charges, could a future Congress hold an impeachment trial against say Obama for the drone strikes? Like 8 years from now in the timeline. Remember, Trump was already out of office at the time of his second impeachment trial in the Senate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:38:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DubyaB: Snip They’re so focused on orange man bad that they can’t use any critical thinking skills to recognize future ramifications of what they’re trying to do. Yup, and I hope it destroys the corrupt democrats someday. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DubyaB: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Excellent question. I heard that remark and I was wtf did he just say? lol They’re so focused on orange man bad that they can’t use any critical thinking skills to recognize future ramifications of what they’re trying to do. Snip They’re so focused on orange man bad that they can’t use any critical thinking skills to recognize future ramifications of what they’re trying to do. Yup, and I hope it destroys the corrupt democrats someday. For calling themselves "progressives" they're not very good at forward thinking. Dingy Harry gave us the now conservative USSC with his nuclear option in the Senate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:40:08 PM EDT
[#35]
I don't think Roberts wants to address the issue even though he was against indicting presidents.
I also think the prosecution side did a poor job of trying to argue that Trump wants absolute immunity and that the court should only rule on that aspect. Thomas was very telling and his arguments mirrored many of my previous posts warning that this could result in a pandora's box. US Presidents have ordered all kinds of nasty shit - including massacres and they weren't prosecuted. I believe either 5-4 or 6-3. It depends on how much the other justices want to keep Roberts on board. There is a remote possibility that Kagan will side with Trump. And the newest DEI Justice is a complete moron and an embarrassment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:43:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sonaliel: Remember, Trump was already out of office at the time of his second impeachment trial in the Senate. Which conveniently gave Republican senators an excuse to vote not guilty, even as they gave speeches saying they believed he was guilty!  Y'all are literally making the argument that they were wrong in their legal process assessment and should have actually voted guilty! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:44:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:45:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: ...There is a remote possibility that Kagan will side with Trump. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:47:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Originally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. It has to be obvious, even to them, that they were not appointed for their legal expertise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:49:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: I don’t agree with your assumption, but there is nothing from stopping congress from holding impeachment hearings/votes on the drone strikes. Congress has ceded a lot of the power and oversight to the executive branch following WW2 but if they can prove he ordered a strike that isn’t covered under those provisions, yes it would be an impeachable offense. One that did fall under those provisions is going to an official act and perfectly legal. The danger I see when applying this standard to other situations. In Obamas case, the DOJ said he was good to go. I don’t see anything stopping a future DOJ from looking back and saying actually he wasn’t good to go and starting the ball rolling for impeachment and criminal charges. There’s no possible way it doesn’t end in a tit for tat. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:50:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CTM1]
[#41]
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. I agree with you that there has to be a way to hold a former president accountable for crimes if they are discovered after they leave office and they are either not seeking a second term or are excluded via term limits. Pelosi went after President Ttrump with a second impeachment for Jan 6th and according to some legal scholars she did not follow procedure. The articles of impeachment went nowhere and she knew they would not but she said history will show he has been impeached twice. If she had gone after him with what is being alleged in this case and framed it as a high crime and misdemeanor and he was not convicted in the senate does the next presidents DOJ get to cry foul and go after a political enemy by saying he was not properly held accountable? A sitting president has a duty to ensure election integrity even if it benefits them. Optics are a thing in this nation and let us not forget millions of voters believe Biden did not win. Millions believe the Russian Hoax perpetrated by our own gov't cost President Trump votes. Millions believe the first impeachment was unfounded and purely political, and now the opposition party is going after the same man yet again and on several fronts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:51:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Again, did he act within the law? They were embedding lawyers in combat everywhere. You don't think a team of lawyers was reviewing and approving before any of that happened? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: 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? "No person may be deprived of life, liberty , or property without due process. " Again, did he act within the law? They were embedding lawyers in combat everywhere. You don't think a team of lawyers was reviewing and approving before any of that happened? Any evidence they did? Are "teams of lawyers" inscrutable? I know many a lawyer who broke the law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:51:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NavyDoc1]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Actually all of them. You must have forgotten the DNC and Hillary's urging to bribe or intimidate electors to change their votes, the Democrats standing up and trying to stop the certification, and the accusations of the theft of the election. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:52:14 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Her vs Thomas make it clear who got on the bench because of ability and who was the DEI hire. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:52:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: He would have been if not for Fords pardon. He would have been impeached and then criminally charged by the DOJ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Nixon didn't orchestrate Watergate nor was that ever the accusation nor was he ever criminally prosecuted. He would have been if not for Fords pardon. He would have been impeached and then criminally charged by the DOJ. Are you sure of that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:52:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Question for the group: assuming that impeachment is held as being required for criminal charges, could a future Congress hold an impeachment trial against say Obama for the drone strikes? Like 8 years from now in the timeline. There is no statute of limitations for Murder. |
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:52:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Again, did he act within the law? They were embedding lawyers in combat everywhere. You don't think a team of lawyers was reviewing and approving before any of that happened? Nobody is surprised that you're carrying Obama's water |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:52:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Which conveniently gave Republican senators an excuse to vote not guilty, even as they gave speeches saying they believed he was guilty! Y'all are literally making the argument that they were wrong in their legal process assessment and should have actually voted guilty! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By sonaliel: Remember, Trump was already out of office at the time of his second impeachment trial in the Senate. Which conveniently gave Republican senators an excuse to vote not guilty, even as they gave speeches saying they believed he was guilty! Y'all are literally making the argument that they were wrong in their legal process assessment and should have actually voted guilty! Do you literally believe that a politician won't play both sides of an issue to their advantage? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:52:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RustedAce]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The law doesn't care about your feelings. Laws are less real and far less powerful than feelings. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:53:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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:   Is that "asking for legit elections"? |
|
|
|
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.
