BREAKING: Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez found guilty in federal corruption trial

[Jarlaxle]

Moot point. According to SCOTUS, public officials cant be held accountable for taking bribes. Should be easy enough to win on appeal.

Bullshit.

I think he will get probation and house arrest because of his age,

Unfortunately. He should get a long drop at the end of a short rope.

They never said that. Will you libtards EVER STOP with your scare tactics?

Taking bribes is not an official act.

No, they will not.

 

[Nostra]

Obama ordered a drone strike on an American citizen overseas. Do you really think it was worse for the country that Obama had to first contemplate the legality of his actions?

So you think Presidents should be able to assassinate Americans as long as they are out of the country?

 

[Marener]

So you think Presidents should be able to assassinate Americans as long as they are out of the country?

SCOTUS thinks so.

 

[Marener]

Stupid repetitive pointless "rebuttals" that only make sense to you and brain dead progressives like you.

You’re almost completely incapable of admitting you are wrong. It’s a pathology, commonly shared amongst MAGA.

You've lived in your lefty bubble so long you can't handle any opposing opinion.

That’s idiotic. Why do you think I seek them out here?

 

[martybegan]

You’re almost completely incapable of admitting you are wrong. It’s a pathology, commonly shared amongst MAGA.

That’s idiotic. Why do you think I seek them out here?

I'm not wrong. That's the beauty of having opinions. You haven't proven to me otherwise.

You don't seek anything out, you just seek confirmation of your own biases, then mewl like a sad kitten when things don't go your way.

 

[Marener]

I'm not wrong. That's the beauty of having opinions. You haven't proven to me otherwise.

Wasn’t it this thread when you claimed the president could be charged with dereliction of duty for “allowing” Russia to invade Crimea based on a memorandum (you called it a treaty) where we promised not to invade Ukraine ?

You also ridiculed me for not “understanding” this.

I get it. You’re a big snowflake who demands your “opinions” be respected even when you can’t defend them.

 

[martybegan]

Wasn’t it this thread when you claimed the president could be charged with dereliction of duty for “allowing” Russia to invade Crimea based on a memorandum (you called it a treaty) where we promised not to invade Ukraine ?

You also ridiculed me for not “understanding” this.

I get it. You’re a big snowflake who demands your “opinions” be respected even when you can’t defend them.

If he doesn't have any immunity, what's to stop someone from trying?

He's commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not in uniform but part of the Chain of Command.

It's being downgraded to a memorandum to cover for the fact Obama did jack shit when Russia took Crimea in 2014.

You don't.

And you as a usual leftist use the term snowflake wrong.

 

[jotathought]

If you are a convicted felon, you don't have that right any more.

Please demonstrate where that is in the constitution. I'll be waiting.

 

[Marener]

If he doesn't have any immunity, what's to stop someone from trying?

Because it’s a stupid fucking idea. A grand jury would never indict on it and if they did it would be almost immediately dismissed in court. The prosecutor would almost certainly be reprimanded and could face consequences with the bar.

He's commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not in uniform but part of the Chain of Command.

He’s not just a part of the chain of command, he’s as the top of the chain of command. Makes a big difference when you want to consider prosecuting him for failing to follow orders.

It's being downgraded to a memorandum to cover for the fact Obama did jack shit when Russia took Crimea in 2014.

It wasn’t downgraded. It was also a memorandum. Stop making dumb shit up, dipshit. The memorandum doesn’t require us to do jack shit if Russia invades.

You don't.

I didn’t understand the analogy because it was so fucking stupid. It is necessary to explain your crazy bullshit because it doesn’t make sense to people who aren’t as fucking stupid as you are.

And you as a usual leftist use the term snowflake wrong.

A snowflake thinks their opinion counts as much as anyone else’s even when it’s based on total ignorance of the issue.

 

[martybegan]

Because it’s a stupid fucking idea. A grand jury would never indict on it and if they did it would be almost immediately dismissed in court. The prosecutor would almost certainly be reprimanded and could face consequences with the bar.

He’s not just a part of the chain of command, he’s as the top of the chain of command. Makes a big difference when you want to consider prosecuting him for failing to follow orders.

It wasn’t downgraded. It was also a memorandum. Stop making dumb shit up, dipshit. The memorandum doesn’t require us to do jack shit if Russia invades.

I didn’t understand the analogy because it was so fucking stupid. It is necessary to explain your crazy bullshit because it doesn’t make sense to people who aren’t as fucking stupid as you are.

A snowflake thinks their opinion counts as much as anyone else’s even when it’s based on total ignorance of the issue.

A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Dereliction of duty in the line of Biden allowing those soldiers to die during the Afghanistan withdrawal, or say Reagan when the Marine barracks got blown up.

It's a treaty in all but name. It's an agreement between sovereign Nation States. That's a treaty.

I know I'm smarter than you. Stop pretending otherwise.

No, a snowflake "melts" in the face of opposing opinion and tries to get it shut down. That's the definition.

 

[Marener]

A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

A fun saying but not literally true. Grand juries can and do refuse to indict people if the case has no basis in fact or law, as would be the case with what you're suggesting. You ignored the rest, when I said that the case would be pointless to bring as it would almost immediately be thrown out anyway as having no basis in law whatsoever.

Dereliction of duty in the line of Biden allowing those soldiers to die during the Afghanistan withdrawal, or say Reagan when the Marine barracks got blown up.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the law cited. Dereliction of duty makes it illegal for someone to ignore or disobey a lawful order. That doesn't have anything to do with "allowing" anything.

It's a treaty in all but name. It's an agreement between sovereign Nation States. That's a treaty.

The Constitution says a treaty is a treaty when it's voted on by the Senate. When did that happen?

You also ignored the point that the memorandum doesn't require us to do anything if Russia invades.

I know I'm smarter than you. Stop pretending otherwise.

I'm sure you tell yourself that.

No, a snowflake "melts" in the face of opposing opinion and tries to get it shut down. That's the definition.

They're called snowflakes because they're told they "unique", not because they melt. Snowflakes are never told their opinions and ideas are stupid or wrong. They're just told that they're "unique".

 

[martybegan]

A fun saying but not literally true. Grand juries can and do refuse to indict people if the case has no basis in fact or law, as would be the case with what you're suggesting. You ignored the rest, when I said that the case would be pointless to bring as it would almost immediately be thrown out anyway as having no basis in law whatsoever.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the law cited. Dereliction of duty makes it illegal for someone to ignore or disobey a lawful order. That doesn't have anything to do with "allowing" anything.

The Constitution says a treaty is a treaty when it's voted on by the Senate. When did that happen?

You also ignored the point that the memorandum doesn't require us to do anything if Russia invades.

I'm sure you tell yourself that.

They're called snowflakes because they're told they "unique", not because they melt. Snowflakes are never told their opinions and ideas are stupid or wrong. They're just told that they're "unique".

It's reality.

Giving orders that result in the death of American citizens or soldiers under your command.

The Executive branch has been unconstitutionally agreeing to things that are treaties by calling them something else. That's one of the next targets for this SC.

So still sue or charge Obama anyway. he has no immunity it's open season! Sue or charge Carter in hospice for the Iran hostages! Sue or Charge Reagan's corpse for Lebanon!

That was one of the old definitions. The new one is for the meltdowns on the left when they have to hear an opinion they don't like.

 

[Marener]

It's reality.

It's not. There has to be some rational case for an indictment and you've provided none.

Giving orders that result in the death of American citizens or soldiers under your command.

How stupid do you have to be to think that giving orders that results in the death of soldiers is illegal. You'd prosecute every president in modern history and any general that commanded during any war. Jesus, this is some stupid shit.

The Executive branch has been unconstitutionally agreeing to things that are treaties by calling them something else. That's one of the next targets for this SC.

Constitution says it's not a treaty then. You keep dodging the point that the memorandum doesn't require us to do anything for Ukraine if Russia invades. Run, run, run, pussy.

So still sue or charge Obama anyway. he has no immunity it's open season! Sue or charge Carter in hospice for the Iran hostages! Sue or Charge Reagan's corpse for Lebanon!

Why would any prosecutor want to do something so stupid and pointless?

That was one of the old definitions. The new one is for the meltdowns on the left when they have to hear an opinion they don't like.

So I didn't use it wrong then. I just used the original definition before the right wing warped it.

 

[martybegan]

It's not. There has to be some rational case for an indictment and you've provided none.

How stupid do you have to be to think that giving orders that results in the death of soldiers is illegal. You'd prosecute every president in modern history and any general that commanded during any war. Jesus, this is some stupid shit.

Constitution says it's not a treaty then. You keep dodging the point that the memorandum doesn't require us to do anything for Ukraine if Russia invades. Run, run, run, pussy.

Why would any prosecutor want to do something so stupid and pointless?

So I didn't use it wrong then. I just used the original definition before the right wing warped it.

Or some made up charges designed to get headlines, like with Trump.

Dude, that's what you want to do by denying Presidents have immunity for their official acts.

No, made up bullshit says it's not a Treaty, because executives don't want to go through the hassle of getting Senate confirmation. It's long past time the SC puts a stop to it.

Why would you be so stupid and pointless?

No, like most leftists you know the term stings, and you decided to change it, but poorly and stupidly.

 

[Marener]

Or some made up charges designed to get headlines, like with Trump.

Making up charges is a big deal for prosecutors and can get them in trouble. None of that has occurred for Trump.

Dude, that's what you want to do by denying Presidents have immunity for their official acts.

That doesn't make any sense. No one would ever be prosecuted for it because no one thinks it's illegal. Maybe you do, but that's because you're a fucking moron.

No, made up bullshit says it's not a Treaty, because executives don't want to go through the hassle of getting Senate confirmation. It's long past time the SC puts a stop to it.

Constitution says it's not a treaty. I thought you loved the constitution? You're still avoiding the main point that the memorandum doesn't require us to do to anything if Russia invades Ukraine. You. Just. Keep. Ignoring. It. Because. You. Have. No. Rebuttal.

Why would you be so stupid and pointless?

Weak deflection, avoiding the point. Prosecutors aren't interested in pursuing worthless cases that will be instantly thrown out and could result in repercussions. If it ever did happen, the former president has nothing to worry about. The courts are perfectly capable of dismissing prosecutions.

No, like most leftists you know the term stings, and you decided to change it, but poorly and stupidl

It's very applicable here.

 

[Nostra]

SCOTUS thinks so.

Quote them saying it’s ok to kill Americans as long as they are out of the country.

 

[excalibur]

SCOTUS thinks so.

​

 

[Marener]

​

"The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

 

[excalibur]

"The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

And where is it a core Constitutional power to execute a citizen?

And I knew you were going to use Trump v. United States, you people are so bent.

 

[Marener]

And where is it a core Constitutional power to execute a citizen?

He's the commander in chief of the US military.