Trump can be indicted as President

[Spycraft]

America is going to get a rather rude awakening if President Trump tries to pull a "Dredd" and claim "I am the law!"

This matter was already settled in English law which is the foundation of US law, when Queen Mary was executed.

The dispute then was can the law apply to the personal embodiment of the law? Back then the Queen wasn't merely a supposed figurehead, but was the government itself. The Queen or the King was therefore the law, was the font from which all authority sprang.

They could be no more held accountable for their actions by the thing they created, than God could be held accountable by His own creation.

Her execution is a rather obvious testimony to the outcome of that debate.

America has apparently not yet learned this lesson, but I'm sure Trump will force them to do so.

 

[Reasonable]

Another thread too painful for Trumpanzees to participate in.
Lock him up. Lock him up

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Trump will not be indicted, nor will he be impeached. On the other hand, the evidence of Hillary colluding with the Russians along with massive corruption within the FBI and DOJ.is mounting. Trump will be vindicated.

 

[Avatar4321]

First you guys need a credible crime to accuse him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

 

[Spycraft]

First you guys need a credible crime to accus him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

This is all tertiary to the point of the thread.

"President can't be indicted" is not a defence.

 

[task0778]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the fuck up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

 

[Spycraft]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the fuck up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

#4 is critical because it establishes the precedent. It has nothing to do with hating Trump.

 

[Spycraft]

America is going to get a rather rude awakening if President Trump tries to pull a "Dredd" and claim "I am the law!"

This matter was already settled in English law which is the foundation of US law, when Queen Mary was executed.

The dispute then was can the law apply to the personal embodiment of the law? Back then the Queen wasn't merely a supposed figurehead, but was the government itself. The Queen or the King was therefore the law, was the font from which all authority sprang.

They could be no more held accountable for their actions by the thing they created, than God could be held accountable by His own creation.

Her execution is a rather obvious testimony to the outcome of that debate.

America has apparently not yet learned this lesson, but I'm sure Trump will force them to do so.

You're thread op is in violation of the rules. I'm going to have to report it and get the thread closed.

Not entirely sure how it's in violation of anything.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

#4 is critical because it establishes the precedent. It has nothing to do with hating Trump.

It establishes precedent in Great Britain, but does nothing in American Jurisprudence. It may establish an historical precedent, but that is irrelevant.

 

[Reasonable]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the fuck up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

There’s no evidence yet because Mueller hasn’t released it yet.
But I’ve listened to former Watergate prosecutors, Ex CIA agents. Judges, etc and they say there is ample evidence of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Hell the orange idiot admitted obstruction of justice live on TV in his Lester Holt interview.

 

[Doc1]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the fuck up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

There’s no evidence yet because Mueller hasn’t released it yet.
But I’ve listened to former Watergate prosecutors, Ex CIA agents. Judges, etc and they say there is ample evidence of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Hell the orange idiot admitted obstruction of justice live on TV in his Lester Holt interview.

Son I read voraciously, I do it every day. The ONLY place you could have "heard" that is on the most far Left sources out there.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[Reasonable]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the fuck up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

There’s no evidence yet because Mueller hasn’t released it yet.
But I’ve listened to former Watergate prosecutors, Ex CIA agents. Judges, etc and they say there is ample evidence of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Hell the orange idiot admitted obstruction of justice live on TV in his Lester Holt interview.

Son I read voraciously, I do it every day. The ONLY place you could have "heard" that is on the most far Left sources out there.

Former Watergate prosecutors are far left sources?
Ex CIA operatives are far left sources.
You’re one partisan butthead.

 

[Doc1]

"FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath"

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath

Comey: FBI didn’t put Clinton under oath

Clinton Not Under Oath During FBI Interview, Which Was Not Transcribed

FBI didn't put Hillary Clinton under oath for her email interview | Daily Mail Online

Dumbass

 

[Avatar4321]

First you guys need a credible crime to accus him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

This is all tertiary to the point of the thread.

"President can't be indicted" is not a defence.

Has anyone said he couldn’t? The fact impeachment exists indicates that it’s possible

 

[miketx]

First you guys need a credible crime to accus him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

This is all tertiary to the point of the thread.

"President can't be indicted" is not a defence.

But, as even a moron liar of your stature can see, that is not what the person quote said. He said, "First you guys need a credible crime to accuse him of.". So your juvenile lie is noted and summarily discarded, and you are forever labeled a regressive troll liar.

 

[Doc1]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the fuck up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

There’s no evidence yet because Mueller hasn’t released it yet.
But I’ve listened to former Watergate prosecutors, Ex CIA agents. Judges, etc and they say there is ample evidence of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Hell the orange idiot admitted obstruction of justice live on TV in his Lester Holt interview.

Son I read voraciously, I do it every day. The ONLY place you could have "heard" that is on the most far Left sources out there.

Former Watergate prosecutors are far left sources?
Ex CIA operatives are far left sources.
You’re one partisan butthead.

Post them kid. I don't even like Trump I just like you less than he. You are an imbecile. Now, CITE those folks or shut up.

 

[easyt65]

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

 

[Reasonable]

"FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath"

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath

Comey: FBI didn’t put Clinton under oath

Clinton Not Under Oath During FBI Interview, Which Was Not Transcribed

FBI didn't put Hillary Clinton under oath for her email interview | Daily Mail Online

Dumbass

We’re talking about Trump getting indicted and you run to Hillary where it’s safe and warm for you.

 

[Reasonable]

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

Democrats don’t have to. Republican Bob Mueller is compiling stacks of evidence against your criminal.

 

[Doc1]

"FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath"

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath

Comey: FBI didn’t put Clinton under oath

Clinton Not Under Oath During FBI Interview, Which Was Not Transcribed

FBI didn't put Hillary Clinton under oath for her email interview | Daily Mail Online

Dumbass

We’re talking about Trump getting indicted and you run to Hillary where it’s safe and warm for you.

Kid you posted the Hillary meme, not me.