"As painful it may be, I believe the next attorney general should investigate Trump & if warranted prosecute him for federal crimes”-Andrew Weissman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,148
Reaction score
12,134
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
1,462
Points
170
honestly, Trump should be locked up, my friends

And Obama? And Billary? And Bush?

I would say Jimmy Carter too but that dude was so fucking worthless he couldn't even break the law.
:auiqs.jpg:

only those who have committed actual crimes

properly investigated, properly charged, fair trial.

lets not just put people in jail because you dont like them.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,688
Reaction score
1,090
Points
195
Yes, that's the ticket. Current administrations should be going after and locking up previous ones.

I have no doubt that you cannot see exactly how fucking dangerous that precedent is.
You are worried about setting bad precedents?

Let's see... not releasing tax returns, not divesting from your businesses when elected, openly saying you fired the director of the FBI because an investigation his agency was conducting, equivocating when asked to condemn white supremacy, holding a press conference saying you believe the Russian president over your own intelligence agency's , calling the press an "enemy of the people", inviting the Russian ambassador into the oval office without other Americans present and giving him intelligence given by Israel without even notifying them, releasing classified sattelite photos on twitter, going against health experts advice during a pandemic, pressuring a foreign government to investigate the son of his political rival and OPENLY CALLING FOR THE DOJ TO. INVESTIGATE HIS PREDECESSOR.

This is not all, I actually could go on for a bit but anyone who supported Trump, now saying it is dangerous to not follow precedent is either gaslighting or has been asleep the last 4 years.
I do not support Trump and never have.

That does not change the fact that going after the last president makes the rest of the things you listed look like minnows swimming with whales. It is not even close.
Then I actually apologize and will say that we are of a mind. I'm not comfortable with it myself, with a few caveats. I do not believe a president should involve himself with interfering with whether or not the DOJ investigates someone, So Biden has an immediate problem. How to even stop it? Do you call up the AG and order him to stop it? That in itself is a dangerous precedent. Can be construed and probably is obstruction of justice. Do you pardon Trump yourself? Taking aside it is political suicide to do so it would not stop the state-level charges. So what do you do?

I don't like the optics or the precedent. But the fact of the matter is that Trump more than likely has committed crimes. I come to this conclusion from what I read in the Mueller report (no matter how much he claims it exonerated him) it didn't at all on the obstruction of justice case. The Cohen case where he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and there's a high degree of likelihood NY has him on multiple financial crimes. If you accept that a former president being charged with crimes is a bad precedent then not charging him even if a clear case can be made is an equally dangerous precedent because it would just signal a complete lack of accountability.

I'm just saying it is not at all straightforward.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
68,785
Reaction score
22,686
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,096
Reaction score
2,419
Points
290
I hate to burst your bubble, but here are the facts:
1. Trump's wall and funding: Not unconstitutional.
2. Trump and Russia: Proven a lie and a waste or our (including your) 40 million in taxpayer dollars. Once proven false, the lefty politicians started backpedaling with statements like: "Uh, I only read the first three pages."
3. Reduce taxes on middle America: Not unconstitutional.
4. Significantly increase military budget: Not unconstitutional.
5. Per the President of Ukraine, he didn't feel pressured and there was no quid-pro-quo (unlike Biden who threatened the previous Ukrainian president).
6. Incarcerated prisoners One-Step-Program: Not unconstitutional.
7. Created Opportunity Zones in the inner-cities: Not unconstitutional.
8. Made NATO members pay their fair share to alleviate some of the financial burden from the United States: Not unconstitutional.
9. Insisted on fair and reciprocal trade deals to end foreign nations taking advantage of one-sided trade deals: Not unconstitutional.
10. Putting the U.S. citizens ahead of foreigners: Not unconstitutional.
11. Deporting illegal migrants that have committed felonies: Not only not unconstitutional, but deserved.
12. Supporting law enforcement in which 98% percent of them are hard working people that live in the communities and simply enforce the laws that Congress and their Democrat led cities enact: Not unconstitutional.
13. Challenging the outcome of a national election in which there is a high likelihood of fraud: Constitutional, look it up in the Constitution!
Your scummy candidate: Biden. A complete racist. His mentor and friend who he praised, Robert Byrd, a KKK member. Biden has also praised racist George Wallace. He's also made multiple public racist statements. Yet, Trump, who used to be a Democrat and donated to many causes (the Washington Post printed 95 pages of donations Trump made to many causes and even to the Clintons). Blacks who have known him for years have come out and said that he is not only their friend, but has never shown any racism.
So, if you want to pursue a criminal conviction on someone, look no further than the Biden Criminal Organization.
Also, if you are a rotten low-life Marxist, pack your bags and move to North Korea or China, where everybody has to think alike or be shot.
None of which is part of what Weisseman indicted was Trump's criminal liability.

Obstruction of Justice most definitely is a crime.
He obstructed nothing. As there was no Trump/Russia in the first place, you can't obstruct what isn't there.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,933
Reaction score
4,262
Points
1,050
I hate to burst your bubble, but here are the facts:
1. Trump's wall and funding: Not unconstitutional.
2. Trump and Russia: Proven a lie and a waste or our (including your) 40 million in taxpayer dollars. Once proven false, the lefty politicians started backpedaling with statements like: "Uh, I only read the first three pages."
3. Reduce taxes on middle America: Not unconstitutional.
4. Significantly increase military budget: Not unconstitutional.
5. Per the President of Ukraine, he didn't feel pressured and there was no quid-pro-quo (unlike Biden who threatened the previous Ukrainian president).
6. Incarcerated prisoners One-Step-Program: Not unconstitutional.
7. Created Opportunity Zones in the inner-cities: Not unconstitutional.
8. Made NATO members pay their fair share to alleviate some of the financial burden from the United States: Not unconstitutional.
9. Insisted on fair and reciprocal trade deals to end foreign nations taking advantage of one-sided trade deals: Not unconstitutional.
10. Putting the U.S. citizens ahead of foreigners: Not unconstitutional.
11. Deporting illegal migrants that have committed felonies: Not only not unconstitutional, but deserved.
12. Supporting law enforcement in which 98% percent of them are hard working people that live in the communities and simply enforce the laws that Congress and their Democrat led cities enact: Not unconstitutional.
13. Challenging the outcome of a national election in which there is a high likelihood of fraud: Constitutional, look it up in the Constitution!
Your scummy candidate: Biden. A complete racist. His mentor and friend who he praised, Robert Byrd, a KKK member. Biden has also praised racist George Wallace. He's also made multiple public racist statements. Yet, Trump, who used to be a Democrat and donated to many causes (the Washington Post printed 95 pages of donations Trump made to many causes and even to the Clintons). Blacks who have known him for years have come out and said that he is not only their friend, but has never shown any racism.
So, if you want to pursue a criminal conviction on someone, look no further than the Biden Criminal Organization.
Also, if you are a rotten low-life Marxist, pack your bags and move to North Korea or China, where everybody has to think alike or be shot.
We will start by getting Flynn under oath with no 5th to hide behind....

Didn't think of that when we were handing out pardons
Do you realize the FBI set up a perjury trap on General Flynn over a non crime phone call, the one the original FBI investigation says was legal and left him alone. Flynn was NEVER charged with a viable crime the entire time, just the manufactured perjury trap gambit.

Meanwhile as per YOUR leftist hypocrisy, Obama Pardoned General Cartwright for LYING to the FBI (no perjury trap) but no leftist was upset by it.


The INITIAL FBI interview showed the call with the Russians was LEGAL, never was charged for it.


You like so many leftists ignore the exculpatory evidence the Obama era people led FBI kangaroo court attack on Flynn, suppressed until it was declassified, which is WHY the Prosecutor quickly dropped the case against Flynn, and the DOJ requested the case be closed since NO ONE wanted to pursue it anymore.


Democrats really need to stop lying to themselves over General Flynn:

Do Democrats Really Want to Celebrate the FBI's Heinous Abuses Against Mike Flynn?

BY TYLER O'NEILMAY 07, 2020
LINK

Excerpt:

As Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, put it, then-FBI Director James “Comey et al sought to create a crime in the absence of any evidence of criminal conduct. The case has now collapsed and represents one of the most ignoble moments for [former Special Counsel Robert] Mueller. The Justice Department did the right thing in seeking this dismissal. The new evidence not only undermined the legitimacy of the prosecution but the Justice Department itself. For those blinded by this age of rage, the abuse has been ignored and even defended.”


and the long posted exculpatory evidence,



As National Review‘s Andrew C. McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, explained, Powell’s evidence seemed to confirm not just that Flynn had been set up but that Mueller’s staff had threatened to target his son unless he confessed to the false statements charge.


“As I’ve noted several times over the years, it has long been speculated that Flynn — though he did not believe he was guilty (and though the agents who interviewed him also did not believe he had intentionally misled them) — nevertheless pled guilty to false-statements charges because prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff threatened him,” McCarthy wrote. “Specifically, Flynn is said to have been warned that, if he refused to plead guilty, prosecutors would charge his son with a felony for failing to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. Such a so-called FARA violation (Foreign Agent Registration Act) is a crime that the DOJ almost never charged before the Mueller investigation, and it had dubious application to Flynn’s son (who worked for Flynn’s private-intelligence firm).”


“Well, Powell now contends that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors — she specifically cites Brandon Van Grack, who now runs Justice’s FARA unit — did indeed promise Flynn that they would not charge his son if Flynn pled guilty. Worse, Powell avers that the prosecutors coerced Flynn and his counsel to keep this agreement secret. That is, this was to be a side deal that would not be written into the plea agreement and therefore would be kept from the court and the public,” McCarthy added.

=======


Then here is the exculpatory evidence that Flynn was a subject of a perjury trap.


The Last Refuge

Why Was Flynn Targeted? – A Timeline Review of the Three Phases….

Posted onMay 1, 2020by sundance

LINK


Excerpt:



♦ December 29, 2016 – Reacting to the sanctions, Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak calls incoming National Security Director Michael Flynn. The intelligence community is monitoring the call. (Mueller Report)

♦ December 31, 2016 – Kislyak Call #2 (Mueller Report)

♦ January 4, 2017The FBI Washington Field Office informs the intelligence community via an Electronic Communication, they are closing the 2016 Flynn investigation.




Red bolding mine

======


Democrats need to stop LYING about General Flynn
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
3,325
Points
290
Location
Washington State
Yes, that's the ticket. Current administrations should be going after and locking up previous ones.

I have no doubt that you cannot see exactly how fucking dangerous that precedent is.
You are worried about setting bad precedents?

Let's see... not releasing tax returns, not divesting from your businesses when elected, openly saying you fired the director of the FBI because an investigation his agency was conducting, equivocating when asked to condemn white supremacy, holding a press conference saying you believe the Russian president over your own intelligence agency's , calling the press an "enemy of the people", inviting the Russian ambassador into the oval office without other Americans present and giving him intelligence given by Israel without even notifying them, releasing classified sattelite photos on twitter, going against health experts advice during a pandemic, pressuring a foreign government to investigate the son of his political rival and OPENLY CALLING FOR THE DOJ TO. INVESTIGATE HIS PREDECESSOR.

This is not all, I actually could go on for a bit but anyone who supported Trump, now saying it is dangerous to not follow precedent is either gaslighting or has been asleep the last 4 years.
I do not support Trump and never have.

That does not change the fact that going after the last president makes the rest of the things you listed look like minnows swimming with whales. It is not even close.
Then I actually apologize and will say that we are of a mind. I'm not comfortable with it myself, with a few caveats. I do not believe a president should involve himself with interfering with whether or not the DOJ investigates someone, So Biden has an immediate problem. How to even stop it? Do you call up the AG and order him to stop it? That in itself is a dangerous precedent. Can be construed and probably is obstruction of justice. Do you pardon Trump yourself? Taking aside it is political suicide to do so it would not stop the state-level charges. So what do you do?

I don't like the optics or the precedent. But the fact of the matter is that Trump more than likely has committed crimes. I come to this conclusion from what I read in the Mueller report (no matter how much he claims it exonerated him) it didn't at all on the obstruction of justice case. The Cohen case where he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and there's a high degree of likelihood NY has him on multiple financial crimes. If you accept that a former president being charged with crimes is a bad precedent then not charging him even if a clear case can be made is an equally dangerous precedent because it would just signal a complete lack of accountability.

I'm just saying it is not at all straightforward.
But it is rather straightforward to be honest.

That is what impeachment was for and it was pursued. That it failed does meant that the democrats should simply try again. It really is no different than double jeopardy.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
44,040
Reaction score
17,100
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
I hate to burst your bubble, but here are the facts:
1. Trump's wall and funding: Not unconstitutional.
2. Trump and Russia: Proven a lie and a waste or our (including your) 40 million in taxpayer dollars. Once proven false, the lefty politicians started backpedaling with statements like: "Uh, I only read the first three pages."
3. Reduce taxes on middle America: Not unconstitutional.
4. Significantly increase military budget: Not unconstitutional.
5. Per the President of Ukraine, he didn't feel pressured and there was no quid-pro-quo (unlike Biden who threatened the previous Ukrainian president).
6. Incarcerated prisoners One-Step-Program: Not unconstitutional.
7. Created Opportunity Zones in the inner-cities: Not unconstitutional.
8. Made NATO members pay their fair share to alleviate some of the financial burden from the United States: Not unconstitutional.
9. Insisted on fair and reciprocal trade deals to end foreign nations taking advantage of one-sided trade deals: Not unconstitutional.
10. Putting the U.S. citizens ahead of foreigners: Not unconstitutional.
11. Deporting illegal migrants that have committed felonies: Not only not unconstitutional, but deserved.
12. Supporting law enforcement in which 98% percent of them are hard working people that live in the communities and simply enforce the laws that Congress and their Democrat led cities enact: Not unconstitutional.
13. Challenging the outcome of a national election in which there is a high likelihood of fraud: Constitutional, look it up in the Constitution!
Your scummy candidate: Biden. A complete racist. His mentor and friend who he praised, Robert Byrd, a KKK member. Biden has also praised racist George Wallace. He's also made multiple public racist statements. Yet, Trump, who used to be a Democrat and donated to many causes (the Washington Post printed 95 pages of donations Trump made to many causes and even to the Clintons). Blacks who have known him for years have come out and said that he is not only their friend, but has never shown any racism.
So, if you want to pursue a criminal conviction on someone, look no further than the Biden Criminal Organization.
Also, if you are a rotten low-life Marxist, pack your bags and move to North Korea or China, where everybody has to think alike or be shot.
We will start by getting Flynn under oath with no 5th to hide behind....

Didn't think of that when we were handing out pardons
Just another dead end for a dead head
 
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
62,402
Reaction score
9,488
Points
2,070
"Weissman is nothing more than a partisan prosecutor looking to make a name for himself and enhance his career" - President Trump said after seeing the Times piece
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
68,785
Reaction score
22,686
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
"Weissman is nothing more than a partisan prosecutor looking to make a name for himself and enhance his career" - President Trump said after seeing the Times piece






Try looking up that assholes record before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. He has been overturned for prosecutorial misconduct MANY times. The fucker should have been disbarred and imprisoned long ago. The fact he is a tried and true swamp creature is why he isn't.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,688
Reaction score
1,090
Points
195
Yes, that's the ticket. Current administrations should be going after and locking up previous ones.

I have no doubt that you cannot see exactly how fucking dangerous that precedent is.
You are worried about setting bad precedents?

Let's see... not releasing tax returns, not divesting from your businesses when elected, openly saying you fired the director of the FBI because an investigation his agency was conducting, equivocating when asked to condemn white supremacy, holding a press conference saying you believe the Russian president over your own intelligence agency's , calling the press an "enemy of the people", inviting the Russian ambassador into the oval office without other Americans present and giving him intelligence given by Israel without even notifying them, releasing classified sattelite photos on twitter, going against health experts advice during a pandemic, pressuring a foreign government to investigate the son of his political rival and OPENLY CALLING FOR THE DOJ TO. INVESTIGATE HIS PREDECESSOR.

This is not all, I actually could go on for a bit but anyone who supported Trump, now saying it is dangerous to not follow precedent is either gaslighting or has been asleep the last 4 years.
I do not support Trump and never have.

That does not change the fact that going after the last president makes the rest of the things you listed look like minnows swimming with whales. It is not even close.
Then I actually apologize and will say that we are of a mind. I'm not comfortable with it myself, with a few caveats. I do not believe a president should involve himself with interfering with whether or not the DOJ investigates someone, So Biden has an immediate problem. How to even stop it? Do you call up the AG and order him to stop it? That in itself is a dangerous precedent. Can be construed and probably is obstruction of justice. Do you pardon Trump yourself? Taking aside it is political suicide to do so it would not stop the state-level charges. So what do you do?

I don't like the optics or the precedent. But the fact of the matter is that Trump more than likely has committed crimes. I come to this conclusion from what I read in the Mueller report (no matter how much he claims it exonerated him) it didn't at all on the obstruction of justice case. The Cohen case where he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and there's a high degree of likelihood NY has him on multiple financial crimes. If you accept that a former president being charged with crimes is a bad precedent then not charging him even if a clear case can be made is an equally dangerous precedent because it would just signal a complete lack of accountability.

I'm just saying it is not at all straightforward.
But it is rather straightforward to be honest.

That is what impeachment was for and it was pursued. That it failed does meant that the democrats should simply try again. It really is no different than double jeopardy.
Not true at all. Impeachment is a political process, it doesn't go at all by which evidence is presented. Nor was he ever charged with obstruction of justice. You can't exactly claim double jeopardy for a crime he wasn't impeached for. Even less so for state-level charges. The DOJ has a policy to not indict a sitting president. Fine so be it. But impeachment is not supposed to be a substitution for criminal prosecution.

Does the law apply to a former president? If you claim that as long he was impeached during his term and acquitted he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would seem it doesn't. Not exactly think that's a good precedent.

To be clear I don't think Biden or an AG Biden appoints will make it a point to rehash everything that has happened these last four years. I don't think he should. The fact of the matter is that there are already things happening now, things that are pretty hard to stop without the personal intervention of the president. And I'm much less convinced that he should do this when this does occur.
 
Last edited:
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
62,402
Reaction score
9,488
Points
2,070
"Weissman is nothing more than a partisan prosecutor looking to make a name for himself and enhance his career" - President Trump said after seeing the Times piece






Try looking up that assholes record before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. He has been overturned for prosecutorial misconduct MANY times. The fucker should have been disbarred and imprisoned long ago. The fact he is a tried and true swamp creature is why he isn't.
i've read his book "Where The Law Ends"...have you?
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
68,785
Reaction score
22,686
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
"Weissman is nothing more than a partisan prosecutor looking to make a name for himself and enhance his career" - President Trump said after seeing the Times piece






Try looking up that assholes record before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. He has been overturned for prosecutorial misconduct MANY times. The fucker should have been disbarred and imprisoned long ago. The fact he is a tried and true swamp creature is why he isn't.
i've read his book "Where The Law Ends"...have you?




Why would I want to read a bullshit piece of propaganda from a known scumbag? If you admire assholes, like this, then you need to have your head examined.,


Explosive New Documents Reveal Andrew Weissmann’s Misconduct In Enron Case

The now unsealed records expose efforts by Weissmann, and the Enron Task Force he led, to intimidate witnesses and to interfere in the attorney-client relationship of a cooperating witness. Several affidavits unsealed last week catalogued veiled threats made to witnesses the Enron defendants sought to interview. However, because many of the attorneys would speak only off the record to Enron’s attorneys, the courts refused to consider the affidavits sufficient to prove prosecutorial misconduct.

Two attorneys, however, were willing to testify. In a just-unsealed affidavit, one lawyer stated that an FBI agent working for the Enron Task Force overseen by Weissmann warned his client against talking to the Enron defense team because “those are bad guys.” The second attorney stated that an FBI agent had made veiled threats against his client in a separate Enron trial.
 
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
62,402
Reaction score
9,488
Points
2,070
though he is not as classy and stoic as Mueller, Weissman is on his way to become a special prosecutor who takes down President Ivanka in 2025!
 
OP
basquebromance

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
62,402
Reaction score
9,488
Points
2,070
"Weissman is nothing more than a partisan prosecutor looking to make a name for himself and enhance his career" - President Trump said after seeing the Times piece






Try looking up that assholes record before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. He has been overturned for prosecutorial misconduct MANY times. The fucker should have been disbarred and imprisoned long ago. The fact he is a tried and true swamp creature is why he isn't.
i've read his book "Where The Law Ends"...have you?




Why would I want to read a bullshit piece of propaganda from a known scumbag? If you admire assholes, like this, then you need to have your head examined.,


Explosive New Documents Reveal Andrew Weissmann’s Misconduct In Enron Case

The now unsealed records expose efforts by Weissmann, and the Enron Task Force he led, to intimidate witnesses and to interfere in the attorney-client relationship of a cooperating witness. Several affidavits unsealed last week catalogued veiled threats made to witnesses the Enron defendants sought to interview. However, because many of the attorneys would speak only off the record to Enron’s attorneys, the courts refused to consider the affidavits sufficient to prove prosecutorial misconduct.

Two attorneys, however, were willing to testify. In a just-unsealed affidavit, one lawyer stated that an FBI agent working for the Enron Task Force overseen by Weissmann warned his client against talking to the Enron defense team because “those are bad guys.” The second attorney stated that an FBI agent had made veiled threats against his client in a separate Enron trial.
this is what you have on Andrew? that he voted for Hillary? the majority of America did the same thing!

i wonder who in Trump's mind was angry Democrat #1 and which was #2??
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top