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

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Just tell me what crimes... not one of you can...

A dying sealion, you. Read the indictments. He will be convicted.

 

[Rambunctious]

A dying sealion, you. Read the indictments. He will be convicted.

Tell what they are... none of you can...

 

[bendog]

Should we start "an office pool?" I say we'll have three maga votes to affirm that when trump is potus breaking laws is legal.

 

[Rambunctious]

PUT TRUMP IN JAIL....
for what?????

 

[BlindBoo]

What crimes?....

 

[Rawley]

If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine.

There’s no need for protection.

But the consequences of protecting presidents could result in lawlessness from the most powerful person in the country. A far worse consequence.

At least you admit you support bogus criminal charges intended to influence elections. Kudos

 

[Marener]

At least you admit you support bogus criminal charges intended to influence elections. Kudos

Your statement is quite dishonest. I did nothing of the sort.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still waiting for the list of crimes.... but I know you have already ran away...

Good, sit there and wait and stay ignorant.

Or read the indictments like a normal adult.

 

[BlindBoo]

Tell what they are... none of you can...

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1512(k);and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Of course that's just charges from his traitorous Jan 6th plot to overturn the valid, free and fair election he lost in 2020. All the other charges are just as easily accessible.

 

[Rawley]

Your statement is quite dishonest. I did nothing of the sort.

That's precisely what you posted. Fox said "Because I never want another malicious administration being able to force a political opponent into a bogus trial."

to which you responded

"If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine."

You have no problem with bogus criminal charges brought for political purposes.

 

[Marener]

That's precisely what you posted. Fox said "Because I never want another malicious administration being able to force a political opponent into a bogus trial."

to which you responded

"If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine."

You have no problem with bogus criminal charges brought for political purposes.

Nothing in that quote offered my personal opinion on such charges.

 

[Rawley]

Nothing in that quote offered my personal opinion on such charges.

"If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine" How will he be fine? Very costly and very public trial to fight bogus politically motivated charges intended to interfere with a Presidential election. With your cult dancing up and down chanting 91 felonies. How is that fine?

 

[Marener]

"If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine" How will he be fine? Very costly and very public trial to fight bogus politically motivated charges intended to interfere with a Presidential election. With your cult dancing up and down chanting 91 felonies. How is that fine?

If the charges are bogus, he won't be convicted. Public trials protect the accused. The public will have a chance to see his innocence on display and the bogusness of the charges.

That's exactly the same as if any of us are charged with bogus politically motivated charges. Like when Durham charged Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko.

Any of us could be prosecuted maliciously but we are all protected by the same judicial system. We don't need to invent new protections for Trump with far reaching consequences.

Bogus charges are bad. I'm not okay with them. Fortunately, we have an excellent system set up to differentiate bogus charges from real ones.

 

[Rawley]

Bogus charges are bad. I'm not okay with them.

That's not what you are saying. You're saying "If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine"

There's nothing fine about bogus charges being brought, even if the victim is cleared in the end.

Like bogus rape charges - "you'll be fine - if you didn't rape her, you'll be acquitted.'

I agree with Fox, immunity is necessary as a prophylactic against bogus political charges. Your cult's fantasy of Trump using Seal Team six to assassinate Gavin Newsom is nothing more than that, a fantasy.

 

[Marener]

That's not what you are saying. You're saying "If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine"

There's nothing fine about bogus charges being brought, even if the victim is cleared in the end.

Like bogus rape charges - "you'll be fine - if you didn't rape her, you'll be acquitted.'

I agree with Fox, immunity is necessary as a prophylactic against bogus political charges. Your cult's fantasy of Trump using Seal Team six to assassinate Gavin Newsom is nothing more than that, a fantasy.

You assumed to know what I meant by "fine". I meant "not convicted".

Next time ask before making such assumptions.

You're not just asking for protection against bogus charges, you're also asking for protection against legitimate charges as well. That's dangerous and unnecessary.

 

[Rawley]

You assumed to know what I meant by "fine". I meant "not convicted".

Next time ask before making such assumptions.

Next time alert to some bizarre interpretation of the common words you use. I'll bite, what did you mean by "will be fine" when talking about someone indicted on bogus charges (other than not convicted).

You're not just asking for protection against bogus charges, you're also asking for protection against legitimate charges as well. That's dangerous and unnecessary.

Nope. This would provide a legitimate defense in a motion to dismiss that will weed out bogus charges.

 

[Marener]

Nope. This would provide a legitimate defense in a motion to dismiss that will weed out bogus charges.

It won't just weed out bogus charges, it'll weed out all charges, including legitimate ones.

The defense already has motions to dismiss that weed out bogus charges. Same ones the rest of us have.

 

[Rawley]

It won't just weed out bogus charges, it'll weed out all charges, including legitimate ones.

The defense already has motions to dismiss that weed out bogus charges. Same ones the rest of us have.

Does qualified immunity weed out all charges?

You missed -Next time alert to some bizarre interpretation of the common words you use. I'll bite, what did you mean by "will be fine" when talking about someone indicted on bogus charges (other than not convicted).

 

[BlindBoo]

That's not what you are saying. You're saying "If the charges are bogus, then the former president will be fine"

There's nothing fine about bogus charges being brought, even if the victim is cleared in the end.

Like bogus rape charges - "you'll be fine - if you didn't rape her, you'll be acquitted.'

I agree with Fox, immunity is necessary as a prophylactic against bogus political charges. Your cult's fantasy of Trump using Seal Team six to assassinate Gavin Newsom is nothing more than that, a fantasy.

If the charges were truly bogus the indictments wouldn't happen. The initial investigation wouldn't find enough evidence to recommend pressing charges. For example, the Durham investigation. He and Barr tried like the Devil to find evidence against Obama or Clinton or anyone else they could charge with crimes. But if he did find evidence do you think you would be advocating for immunity for Obama? As for Jan. 6th, the evidence is overwhelming and within a year of starting his investigation, Smith has accumulated enough evidence and witnesses to present to a grand jury to get the indictments against Trump.

 

[Marener]

Does qualified immunity weed out all charges?

No. But it's also not relevant to the discussion. Trump is not claiming qualified immunity.

I'll bite, what did you mean by "will be fine" when talking about someone indicted on bogus charges (other than not convicted).

Already answered. Please consider reviewing previous posts before asking questions.

I meant "not convicted".