Breaking! Congress To Step In And Give Immunities to Immunize President Trump From Jack Smith ( 18 U.S. Code § 6002 – 3)

[OKTexas]

No she didn't...

She said Russia Interfered in the election to aid Trump... She was taking that from a GOP led Senate intelligence report :

Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as the other reports did, about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

www.pbs.org

Just because your media bubble doesn't tell you dick, doesn't let you walk around ignorant...

Here is the difference:

What Trump said was lies... Trump had 60+ court cases and couldn't prove his case..

What Hillary said was backed by evidence.. You then misquoted her and tried equate the two...
Why? because you know that Trump is guilty and want to drag in a Democrat... Nice try..

You're a liar, most of the cases were dismissed on technicalities, the courts never heard the merits of the cases. You can't prove shit in a court without a proper hearing.

.

 

[OKTexas]

No she did not. She con-ceded the very next morning.

The bitch funded the Russia collusion delusion, yeah, she knowingly lied. Everyone from maobama to comey knew it was nothing but a partisan hack job, and acted on it anyway. Talk about committing a fraud on the US.

.

 

[OKTexas]

"Smith admitted there was election fraud in 2020"................

Yep, you must be looking in the mirror with all the giggling.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump didn't petition the government, nor did he have any evidence.

Exactly what would you call it, he thought and still thinks the election was stolen. Us your own words and not commiecrat or LSM talking points. BTW, I can't find anywhere in the 1st amendment where evidence is required.

.

 

[surada]

Exactly what would you call it, he thought and still thinks the election was stolen. Us your own words and not commiecrat or LSM talking points. BTW, I can't find anywhere in the 1st amendment where evidence is required.

.

Trump knew the election wasn't stolen. He just wanted revenge.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure. Polls are gonna help when he lands in jail.

The SC will throw all those cases out.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump knew the election wasn't stolen. He just wanted revenge.

He's not a prog.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump didn't petition the government, nor did he have any evidence.

you really don't know what the word "petition" means, do you?

 

[OKTexas]

Trump knew the election wasn't stolen. He just wanted revenge.

Yet everyone close to Trump, including his current lawyers, say he is still convinced the election was stolen. I would say those folks know his state of mind much better than you.

.

 

[surada]

Yet everyone close to Trump, including his current lawyers, say he is still convinced the election was stolen. I would say those folks know his state of mind much better than you.

.

They all testify that Trump knew he lost and said so something about it.

 

[OKTexas]

They all testify that Trump knew he lost and said so something about it.

.

 

[surada]

.

Already posted several times.

 

[OKTexas]

Already posted several times.

.

 

[Kilroy2]

This is why the founding fathers gave separation of powers. It's time to put this fanatical abuse of Lawfare against Trump by Jack Smith.

From a commenter on another forum:

[It immunizes him from anything that he might say under oath to the congress. If he says that the election was stolen in that testimony then he is immune from any prosecutions related to that statement. Jack Smith is currently charging Trump based upon him saying that the election was stolen. See how that might work now. All that has to be done is to be asked questions that somehow relate to any of the charges and the charges go away as long as he has immunity when he says them.]

"We Can Utilize Congressional Immunities to Immunize President Trump" - GOP Rep. Gaetz Reveals Plan to Fight Back Against Jack Smith's Abuse (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz revealed a plan to fight back against Special Counsel Jack Smith after his latest charges against Trump.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Its not a one man show in congress he still needs significant support. It also appears that congress would be interfering with the judicial branch.

Also congressional immunities by it vary name is something that is granted to congress members.


My god this is so hilarious . It smacks of desperation as people risking their careers for Trump.

Well you know the only way to save Trump is if Joe Biden steps in and use presidential pardons.

He might do it if Trump signs a document that he will never run for president or any government office again. He also has to pay the winner of all the civil lawsuits that he lost.

Well I guess that what you get with the gateway pundit. Still a congressman would even say that is mind-blowing. I guess the other networks were just laughing to hard to take him seriously.

Hey if Trump ran for congress then that might work.

 

[BULLDOG]

This is why the founding fathers gave separation of powers. It's time to put this fanatical abuse of Lawfare against Trump by Jack Smith.

From a commenter on another forum:

[It immunizes him from anything that he might say under oath to the congress. If he says that the election was stolen in that testimony then he is immune from any prosecutions related to that statement. Jack Smith is currently charging Trump based upon him saying that the election was stolen. See how that might work now. All that has to be done is to be asked questions that somehow relate to any of the charges and the charges go away as long as he has immunity when he says them.]

"We Can Utilize Congressional Immunities to Immunize President Trump" - GOP Rep. Gaetz Reveals Plan to Fight Back Against Jack Smith's Abuse (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz revealed a plan to fight back against Special Counsel Jack Smith after his latest charges against Trump.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You might have something if trump was being charged for things he said. He's not. He's being charged with what he did.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

We are well on our way to tyrannical government with little protection for most of the population, while having protection to government officials from accountability, before further crises that would lead to collapse.

 

[Kilroy2]

This is why the founding fathers gave separation of powers. It's time to put this fanatical abuse of Lawfare against Trump by Jack Smith.

From a commenter on another forum:

[It immunizes him from anything that he might say under oath to the congress. If he says that the election was stolen in that testimony then he is immune from any prosecutions related to that statement. Jack Smith is currently charging Trump based upon him saying that the election was stolen. See how that might work now. All that has to be done is to be asked questions that somehow relate to any of the charges and the charges go away as long as he has immunity when he says them.]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...nal-immunities-immunize-president-trump/[/URL

Except that it is a little more than saying that the election was stolen. His actions are what got him in legal trouble not what he said.

The results of the election was certified to be valid and he tried to disrupt the process by using various means such as the riots to disrupt the process of certification process

His actions is the crimes because he tried to defraud the government of a legal election that Biden won

18 U.S.C. rule 371
rule 1512K
rule 241K


The stolen election is just a reason or motive why he promoted the riot. That is all it is.

IF the riots , and the other actions that he did , never happen then there is no case.

His supports talk about what he said as a defense and ignore what he did (actions) which makes him guilty.

What he said does shows his intentions and state of mind. A motive as to why he acted to defraud the government. [/url]

For Congress to step in for political reason to terminate a legal process is interference in another branch of government