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

[PredFan]

 

[buckeye45_73]

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!!

yeah so the made up bullshit you toss around again......but no you cant indict a sitting president. I've explained why in previous posts.

 

[buckeye45_73]

View attachment 193937

it doesn't get any better

 

[PredFan]

They are going to need crates and crates of this stuff.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise by a court of law...

 

[PredFan]

And an entire fleet of these:

 

[Harpy Eagle]

View attachment 193937

it doesn't get any better

I kind of like this one...

 

[DrLove]

yeah so the made up bullshit you toss around again......but no you cant indict a sitting president. I've explained why in previous posts.

Can you not read? I said correct: You cannot indict a POTUS, but you definitely CAN subpoena one.

 

[buckeye45_73]

View attachment 193937

it doesn't get any better

I kind of like this one...

What is this of? It's not clear

 

[buckeye45_73]

yeah so the made up bullshit you toss around again......but no you cant indict a sitting president. I've explained why in previous posts.

Can you not read? I said correct: You cannot indict a POTUS, but you definitely CAN subpoena one.

no one said subpoena........the issue was indictment.....
and why would he answer a subpoena......Mueller has nothing, he has to try and set up Trump with a process crime.....If I'm Trump, I'd say 5th.....just like Clinton and her gang.

 

[miketx]

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.

How can you indict God, troll?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

View attachment 193937

it doesn't get any better

I kind of like this one...

What is this of? It's not clear

Romney supporters crying after Obama won.

It happens on both sides, you zealots are a lot a like, no matter which way you lean

 

[DrLove]

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.

I gave you everything you needed including hyperlinks.

You're extremely slow today - Go back to bed

FBI agent Peter Strzok supported reopening Clinton email investigation

 

[Pop23]

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.

You realize that guilt or innocence is not the same as indictable or not indictable, right?

There should be an intelligence test before allowing someone to start a thread.

 

[buckeye45_73]

View attachment 193937

it doesn't get any better

I kind of like this one...

What is this of? It's not clear

Romney supporters crying after Obama won.

It happens on both sides, you zealots are a lot a like, no matter which way you lean

LOL, learn to post a photo...get one that you don't need to explain.
The difference is they have jobs, a quick cry and then back to normal.....the leftwingers will go out and set them selves on fire and all kinds of dumb shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 should be moot if Congress would only act pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Once removed from office Trump would be indicted as a private citizen.

That's why the Framers didn't address the issue of a president being indicted, there was no need to do so, they intended the people to use the impeachment process.

 

[DrLove]

no one said subpoena........the issue was indictment.....
and why would he answer a subpoena......Mueller has nothing, he has to try and set up Trump with a process crime.....If I'm Trump, I'd say 5th.....just like Clinton and her gang.

Sorry, but Trump would have to answer a subpoena -
Sure, he could fight it in court, but the courts would expeditiously rule with Mueller because there is mega-precedent.
At that point he goes in front of a grand jury with no attorney present.
He COULD take the 5th, but it would be political suicide

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

I gave you everything you needed including hyperlinks.

You're extremely slow today - Go back to bed

FBI agent Peter Strzok supported reopening Clinton email investigation

Wait so you're using an AXIOS article that says because he wrote a letter to reopen the Clinton files after finding Weiner's laptop??? That's it?

that's you basis for that statement??? That's not even close......more of a CYA....gimme a text or an article or something that supports your shit....not just hey I reopened a case that we're not going to do anything with because we already shut it down in the summer.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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 should be moot if Congress would only act pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Once removed from office Trump would be indicted as a private citizen.

That's why the Framers didn't address the issue of a president being indicted, there was no need to do so, they intended the people to use the impeachment process.

sorry clayton, they don't have anything to impeach him on. Try again.

 

[buckeye45_73]

no one said subpoena........the issue was indictment.....
and why would he answer a subpoena......Mueller has nothing, he has to try and set up Trump with a process crime.....If I'm Trump, I'd say 5th.....just like Clinton and her gang.

Sorry, but Trump would have to answer a subpoena -
Sure, he could fight it in court, but the courts would expeditiously rule with Mueller because there is mega-precedent.
At that point he goes in front of a grand jury with no attorney present.
He COULD take the 5th, but it would be political suicide

Political suicide, how many times do you guys jerk off to some dream only to have him beat you to a pulp?

He would take the 5th and we would all laugh at you.......you cant win bro......you have NO EVIDENCE