And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[MagicMike]

Charges not convictions... should you be fired from your job and jailed because you enemy made accusations about you?...
you have to think this stuff through...

These are more than mere "accusations."
These are charges recommended by Grand Juries who have seen the evidence of the crimes.

 

[Marener]

Read our constitution....

The founders were incredibly wary of having too much power in the executive which has evolved to be far more powerful than any of them would have ever imagined.

And you want to make them far less accountable too. It's such a stupid idea.

You know every president would get this version of absolute immunity, right? Not just Trump?

 

[Rambunctious]

No question about it. He deserves a trial because he is not immune from criminal prosecution.

And if the Supreme court says he is not immune he will get the trial... but after the election not before... and he will find a way to pardon himself... what a waste of time and money this is... would be better for everyone if these people concentrated on their jobs instead of revenge...

 

[Rambunctious]

These are more than mere "accusations."
These are charges recommended by Grand Juries who have seen the evidence of the crimes.

But not convictions.... again... innocent until PROVEN guilty... come on man do you want to dump that part of our bill of rights?... I sure don't... only a crazy person would...

 

[Rambunctious]

The founders were incredibly wary of having too much power in the executive which has evolved to be far more powerful than any of them would have ever imagined.

And you want to make them far less accountable too. It's such a stupid idea.

You know every president would get this version of absolute immunity, right? Not just Trump?

That's why we have we have three branches of government... can you name them?...

 

[WEATHER53]

The founders were incredibly wary of having too much power in the executive which has evolved to be far more powerful than any of them would have ever imagined.

And you want to make them far less accountable too. It's such a stupid idea.

You know every president would get this version of absolute immunity, right? Not just Trump?

You decry the founders constantly. Why are you exemplifying them now??

 

[Rawley]

Maybe, instead of just quoting directly from one of Trump's assinine Truth Social posts you could actually link to some "respected legal scholar's" opinion explaining why Bragg's charges aren't solid.

Opinion | The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment (Published 2023)

Why it was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.

www.nytimes.com

Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Should Have Been Dismissed

A state court system that truly enforced the rule of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as Bragg did.

www.newsweek.com

The Big Problem With the Trump Indictment

Perhaps Bragg’s move will embolden other prosecutors to bring charges related to the former president’s alleged misconduct in these arenas.

slate.com

"Bragg’s Case is a Legal Mess — What is He Even Charging Trump With?" | GW Law | The George Washington University

Jonathan Turley wrote for the New York Post about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump.

www.law.gwu.edu

 

[Rawley]

That's why we have we have three branches of government... can you name them?...

Nino, Pinata and Margarita?

 

[Rambunctious]

Nino, Pinata and Margarita?

He still hasn't tried to answer... could it be that he really doesn't know???

 

[MagicMike]

The founders were incredibly wary of having too much power in the executive which has evolved to be far more powerful than any of them would have ever imagined.

And you want to make them far less accountable too. It's such a stupid idea.

You know every president would get this version of absolute immunity, right? Not just Trump?

If the SCOTUS grants blanket immunity this spring to all presidential actions then Biden can just order Trump to prison.
It's a win-win.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just finished one.... my "cult" is going to take back the country...

But can't find any ham sandwiches.

Sad trombone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Charges not convictions... should you be fired from your job and jailed because you enemy made accusations about you?...
you have to think this stuff through...

And this is why you don't feed the sealions.

 

[MagicMike]

Opinion | The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment (Published 2023)

Why it was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.

www.nytimes.com

Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Should Have Been Dismissed

A state court system that truly enforced the rule of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as Bragg did.

www.newsweek.com

The Big Problem With the Trump Indictment

Perhaps Bragg’s move will embolden other prosecutors to bring charges related to the former president’s alleged misconduct in these arenas.

slate.com

"Bragg’s Case is a Legal Mess — What is He Even Charging Trump With?" | GW Law | The George Washington University

Jonathan Turley wrote for the New York Post about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump.

www.law.gwu.edu

Decent links, but all one year old.
Anything more recent....and relevant?

 

[Rambunctious]

And this is why you don't feed the sealions.

I don't know what you are talking about boy...

 

[Rambunctious]

But can't find any ham sandwiches.

Sad trombone.

When you do indict it...

 

[MagicMike]

But not convictions.... again... innocent until PROVEN guilty... come on man do you want to dump that part of our bill of rights?... I sure don't... only a crazy person would...

Agreed.
I am glad we agree on that.
All we can do as citizens (and voters) is look at the info available to us and ask ourselves honestly "based upon all the evidence against him that I have seen is Trump most likely guilty....or not guilty?"
The answer is clear.

 

[Rawley]

Decent links, but all one year old.
Anything more recent....and relevant?

There have been no developments. His case still sucks donkey dick. Significantly, Bragg has still not revealed what crime Trump was allegedly covering up with this internal paperwork. An express element of the statute Bragg is using (the one that turned it into a felony as the Statute of Limitations had long run on the misdemeanor.

 

[Rambunctious]

Agreed.
I am glad we agree on that.
All we can do as citizens (and voters) is look at the info available to us and ask ourselves honestly "based upon all the evidence against him that I have seen is Trump most likely guilty....or not guilty?"
The answer is clear.

Its clear to me that he has enemies in high places... but that doesn't make him guilty of anything... anything that is done to Trump with lawfare sets precedent to be done to others... remember that when your candidate gets dragged into one courtroom after another...

 

[MagicMike]

Its clear to me that he has enemies in high places... but that doesn't make him guilty of anything... anything that is done to Trump with lawfare sets precedent to be done to others... remember that when your candidate gets dragged into one courtroom after another...

Again you have just tried to normalize unprecedented (probably) criminal behavior on Trump's part by insinuating that every other candidate could be guilty of the same thing(s).
It is called whataboutism and it is childish and disingenious.
Also your use of the inacurate term "lawfare" is bullshit.
It's a propaga term used to deligitimize valid and credible legal processes....as in "using the law for warfare."
That's not at all what is going on with Trump's indictments.
He just seems to think that because he is a political candidate he should be above the law now.
See, that was his strategy from the very beginning.
He knew he had indictments coming down the pike so he thought if he announced his candidacy ridiculously early then when the indictments came out he could just cry "POLITICAL PERSECUTION" and his dumbfuck MAGAt sheeple would take the "lawfare" ball and run with it every chance they get.

 

[Michelle420]

If I trusted Justice and the law system was on the up and up then Yes there should be accountability. But the problem for me is I don't believe the justice department or legal system is fair and impartial. I think it can be bribed and also sneaky and not forthright. I don't trust the legal system to work in everyone's corner fairly and equally.