Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? RESOUNDING YES!
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah for such a cautious guy he answered that one with haste. I think maybe Buck (R) was taken aback by how quickly Mueller affirmed that private citizen Donald Trump will be facing criminal charges.
Notice how the Bernouts aren't particularly happy about it. I guess I thought they'd be cheering.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
This is certainly different from what was written in the Mueller Report. Namely that there wasn't evidence Trump obstructed.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I know, right?
After about 5 hours of testimony where he looked indecisive and slow to respond -- because he's testifying on almost two years of investigations documented in hundreds of pages of text -- he popped up immediately and said "yes". About the most clear and instant answer all day. It was as close as he came to saying something like "hot damn, finally, somebody asked the right question". And it was a Republican, in defense of Trump! LOL
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That was certainly not in the Mueller Report, namely there wasn't evidence Trump obstructed.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Do you think you’ve convinced anyone of that lie? Even yourself?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No such thing was in the report. In fact it documented at least 10 separate instances of felony obstruction of justice, quite clearly. The report states that no conclusion was made regarding that because a sitting president can not be indicted.
I don't expect you to know the difference between an investigation and a trial. A trial is necessary to conclude guilt. Kamala Harris is going to toss Donald Trump in the Slammer. She is a prosecutor, Mueller is an investigator. Investigators are not prosecutors. They're cops. Please stop being dumb.
srh88
Well-Known Member
You realize your mom read you "Green eggs and ham" last night.. Right? Not the report. You whacky little guy
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
The report clearly stated, that although he couldn't exonerate Trump from obstruction, he couldn't say there was.
Also notice how you all entirely shifted from failed Russia collusion theory now to this? Actually hilarious
Also notice how you all entirely shifted from failed Russia collusion theory now to this? Actually hilarious
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Nancy Pelosi is committing dereliction of duty by failing to advance Articles of Impeachment for any of a multitude of criminal acts by Trump.
She must IMPEACH OR RESIGN!
A Republican Congress impeached Clinton over stains on an intern's dress, FFS. How long do you think the Right wing would hesitate were the shoe on the other foot?
The Democratic Party is hopelessly incompetent and has lost all credibility in the eyes of the American People.
She must IMPEACH OR RESIGN!
A Republican Congress impeached Clinton over stains on an intern's dress, FFS. How long do you think the Right wing would hesitate were the shoe on the other foot?
The Democratic Party is hopelessly incompetent and has lost all credibility in the eyes of the American People.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They're blind shills for the establishment Democratic Party. It makes no difference that they're completely inept, intolerant and corrupt...
Just like the Republican Party.
We should be following Puerto Rico's example but this forum proves that in general, Americans are just too stupid to see how badly they're being screwed.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I love how when he got stuck with it, Buck (R) tried to change it at the last second by adding in 'ethically' before his time ran out.
Yeah
There was evidence that Trump obstructed in at least 10 different counts. And there was evidence of criminal conspiracy, just not enough (due to obstruction) to charge.
Because we are at war, this is not the time to be stupid. This is not a partisan hanging like it was with Clinton's dress spunk and trying to pull the technicality of what the word 'is' is. This is a systematic campaign of misleading/lying/intensifying to the American people to keep people from being able to talk to each other so that they can't have a rational discussion.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I was just thinking about how you have never actually made a smart comment on this forum.
The Trump campaign definitely colluded with Russia. However, there is no crime that mentions collusion. You can't charge someone with collusion since collusion isn't a crime. He simply didn't find enough evidence to charge him with criminal conspiracy. We all saw the collusion on national TV and a bunch of people are in prison for the election crimes.
Trump is going to go to prison for obstruction of justice. The report is the result of an investigation. It takes a trial to determine guilt but a sitting president can't be indicted.
Try to wrap your feeble mind around it so you don't have to cry when Kamala Harris tosses him in the slammer.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
At this rate tRUmp will be a drooling vegetable from dementia before he is brought to trial, all the signs are there and accelerating.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nah, you don't want a severely mentally disabled person welding. Bagging groceries is a good job for somebody who fit's that description.
Not to say that if the severely handicapped can't do other jobs but they require a strong support group to help them. For example I can name one person with severe mental disability who makes Republicans happy from the office of the President.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
lock him up anyway.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
So you’re bragging that conald disseminated information that Russian spies stole from America?BREAKING: Judge Dismisses DNC Hacking Lawsuit Against Trump Campaign Over Election Interference
by Cristina Laila July 30, 2019 99 Comments
Federal Judge John G. Koeltl for the U.S. District of New York on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the DNC against the 2016 Trump campaign, Donald Trump, Wikileaks, the Russian government, and others associated with so-called Russian election interference.
The DNC first filed this lawsuit a little more than a year ago and all of the defendants in the case claimed the First Amendment protects the dissemination of stolen materials.
Another Democrat fail and more winning for Trump.
Judge Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee wrote in his Tuesday ruling that Trump and the members of his campaign have First Amendment rights and are therefore shielded from the allegations.
The judge also wrote in his 81-page opinion that Russia could not be sued in US courts for election interference and said the DNC’s argument was “entirely divorced” from the facts.
The federal judge absolutely destroyed the Democrat National Committee in his ruling and said that even if the Trump campaign took ‘stolen material’ from Russian hackers it would not be a crime as long as they did not participate in the actual hacking.
This ruling is a huge win for Trump, members of his campaign and the First Amendment.
Fox News reported:
A federal judge in frank terms has dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they “did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place” and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.
The ruling came as Democrats have increasingly sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.
However, Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC’s argument was “entirely divorced” from the facts.
“In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts … to show that any of the defendants — other than the Russian Federation — participated in the theft of the DNC’s information,” Koeltl said.
“Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC’s documents,” he added.
Even better, Judge Koeltl dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice which is a huge defeat for the Democrats meaning the case had massive legal flaws and cannot be refiled.
Read the 81-page opinion by clicking here.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why didn't you respond to my arguments? Why would you spam crap in my thread if you can't stay in the debate? Should we continue this debate next time I visit my family in Imperial Beach? My friend Serge Dedina doesn't need loud mouths in our town who have so much to say but ignore valid arguments and facts.