If Trump can't be "indicted," does THAT mean he is innocent?

nat4900

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2015
42,021
5,964
1,870
The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.
 
The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

Indicted for WHAT?
 
Dream on lefties, your fantasy is falling apart in front of your eyes. It's interesting to note that you can be indicted for lying to the FBI but the FBI can't be indicted for lying to us. Does that mean they are innocent?
 
The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

Indicted for WHAT?

Recurring nightmares from November 8, 2016.
 
The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

Indicted for WHAT?

Indicted so that Nat's wet fantasy could be realized.
 
What evidence is there of ANY collusion between Trump and Russia. Mueller, while acting as head of the FBI, broke federal laws to work with the very Russia oligarchs he is indicting, while never revealing his personal connections. The only evidence of actual money exchanging hands during the election is between the DNC (who rigged their own primary) and Russia for a fictitious dossier that was used, but never cited, as justification for spying on Americans working for a presidential campaign during an election. Now it is being reported, by inside sources, that the FBI not only wire-tapped the campaign, but put an actual spy inside. And the moron leftists on this board, motivated by pure, unadulterated hate are praising these treasonous actions.
 
No he cant be indicted, the main reason is because he's President and you can indict anyone for anything.......they have nothing.....

So, moron, Trump is then "innocent".????.......LOL
 
The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.
Liberals have repeatedly declared that although Democrats have repeatedly been proven to have committed crimes they are 'innocent' because they were protected from indictment by Obama and his DOJ.

Using the snowflakes' own argument, no conviction of Trump - no conviction of ANYONE - automatically means they are 'innocent'....unless snowflakes now try to argue that defense only applies to Liberals. :p
 
According to disgraced FBI Agent and Fired Mueller Team Member Strzok Flynn lied to the FBI and was indicted...although FBI Director Comey testified his agents stated they did not think Flynn lied to them when questioned....and IF he lied to them they all agree he would have lied about something that wasn't even a crime.....

So, yeah, without ever going to trial Flynn is guilty and that makes Trump automatically 'guilty'....

Gotta love the snowflake reasoning / thought process... :p
 
Are you stupid?
you can indict anyone for anything......it's not hard.
but you think he's guilty...of what?


I'll repeat the question so that even a moron like you can understand it

If a sitting president CANNOT be indicted.....does THAT mean he is innocent....Yes or No?
 
The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

Oh hell, Senile Rudy not only says he can't be indicted (which I believe is correct) - He also says that Trump can't be subpoenaed (which is nonsense).

Rationale you ask? - That a president doesn't have the time to spend a few hours honestly answering questions and still be expected to run the country.

Uhhh - THIS about an orange clown who is up by 6 AM tweeting, eating Egg McMuffins and watching Fox-n-Friends until his day begins at ELEVEN.

So there's 5 hours and add to that MINIMALLY an average of 8 hours a week he spends on the golf course.

So there's 42 hours when Mueller might need 8 .. Ta Da!! :113:
 
According to disgraced FBI Agent and Fired Mueller Team Member Strzok Flynn lied to the FBI and was indicted...although FBI Director Comey testified his agents stated they did not think Flynn lied to them when questioned....and IF he lied to them they all agree he would have lied about something that wasn't even a crime.....

So, yeah, without ever going to trial Flynn is guilty and that makes Trump automatically 'guilty'....

Gotta love the snowflake reasoning / thought process... :p

One might properly note that Peter Strzok argued for Comey to be a WHOLE lot tougher on Hillary.

How could this be you ask? Behold! :D

FBI agent Peter Strzok helped pen the first draft of the infamous Comey letter that reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails just 11 days before the 2016 election, according to emails obtained by CNN.

Why it matters: Strzok is currently at the center of a DOJ investigation into text messages exchanged between him and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which several Republicans claim show bias for Hillary Clinton and against President Trump. But the release of the emails suggest he may have been more aggressive in his treatment of Hillary Clinton than previously thought.
 
Are you stupid?
you can indict anyone for anything......it's not hard.
but you think he's guilty...of what?


I'll repeat the question so that even a moron like you can understand it

If a sitting president CANNOT be indicted.....does THAT mean he is innocent....Yes or No?
Because your question is flawed....it can be either.....you cant be this stupid.
 
According to disgraced FBI Agent and Fired Mueller Team Member Strzok Flynn lied to the FBI and was indicted...although FBI Director Comey testified his agents stated they did not think Flynn lied to them when questioned....and IF he lied to them they all agree he would have lied about something that wasn't even a crime.....

So, yeah, without ever going to trial Flynn is guilty and that makes Trump automatically 'guilty'....

Gotta love the snowflake reasoning / thought process... :p

One might properly note that Peter Strzok argued for Comey to be a WHOLE lot tougher on Hillary.

How could this be you ask? Behold! :D

FBI agent Peter Strzok helped pen the first draft of the infamous Comey letter that reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails just 11 days before the 2016 election, according to emails obtained by CNN.

Why it matters: Strzok is currently at the center of a DOJ investigation into text messages exchanged between him and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which several Republicans claim show bias for Hillary Clinton and against President Trump. But the release of the emails suggest he may have been more aggressive in his treatment of Hillary Clinton than previously thought.

really please show me where he wanted to be tougher on Hilary?
I love this nonsense.....kinda like when Trump called illegals animals....oh wait, it was for MS 13 members...funny how everyone but CNN misquoted him......hmmmmmm, it's like they are trying to lie about the President...interesting.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top