Case Against Former FBI Director James Comey Dismissed

[forkup]

Here's another clue for you: you continue to defend the most corrupt President and Department of Justice in American history.

You are right, you gave another clue. Whenever you get challenged to be specific you simply assert other things. Thanks for noticing.

 

[postman]

Or the Mar O Lago documents case.

That would be a good one to resurrect.
Along with January 6th 2021, in which there is no double jeopardy in political cases.

 

[postman]

I told you.
And the rage from what they've done to thousands of people hasn't dissipated.

Are you talking about the seditious conspiracy of January 6th?

 

[forkup]

That would be a good one to resurrect.
Along with January 6th 2021, in which there is no double jeopardy in political cases.

Didn't go to trial. Double jeopardy doesn't apply.

 

[jknowgood]

Be careful what you wish for. That would also subject Trump to criminal prosecution for his Epstein exploits.

Actually Bill and Hillary Clinton are fixing to go to jail for refusing testifying about their dealings with Epstein.

 

[postman]

Didn't go to trial. Double jeopardy doesn't apply.

I was thinking of impeachment and conviction.
Because once convicted, even the supreme courts ruling on presidential immunity is superseded by the constitution, allowing criminal prosecution.

 

[postman]

Actually Bill and Hillary Clinton are fixing to go to jail for refusing testifying about their dealings with Epstein.

Why do you presume they will refuse to testify?

 

[forkup]

I was thinking of impeachment and conviction.
Because once convicted, even the supreme courts ruling on presidential immunity is superseded by the constitution, allowing criminal prosecution.

How so? It's my understanding that immunity applies to acts done that can be construed as falling under presidential duties. I don't think getting impeached changes that calculation. Did I miss something?

I mentioned Mar O Lago because that seems the case where it'll be very hard to claim his actions fall under the immunity ruling. Regardless though there is a statute of limitations so we are just spit balling.

 

[Lockback]

Are you talking about the seditious conspiracy of January 6th?

I'm talking about the protest that turned into a riot, helped by the FBI and other dark forces in an effort to forever brand Trump supporters as the bad guys.

 

[Lockback]

You are right, you gave another clue. Whenever you get challenged to be specific you simply assert other things. Thanks for noticing.

 

[forkup]

You keep on giving more clues. Now you're just boasting how well you understood my point.

You’re like a magician who keeps pulling scarves out of their sleeve, except they’re all the same color and none of them are evidence.

Just to check. You do realize every time you try prove a claim by simply making another claim you are just showing your ass right? Doing it with memes... not better. Just so you understand the irony of the picture here.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Did anyone believe for a second that ANYONE in the Swamp would actually be arrested for ANYTHING? Hahahahahahaha. Silly kids.

 

[postman]

How so? It's my understanding that immunity applies to acts done that can be construed as falling under presidential duties. I don't think getting impeached changes that calculation. Did I miss something?

I mentioned Mar O Lago because that seems the case where it'll be very hard to claim his actions fall under the immunity ruling. Regardless though there is a statute of limitations so we are just spit balling.

Remember what the constitution, and Trump's own lawyers argued.

Article 1 section 3 clause 7

[7] Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Shall, in Constitutional speak, means must.

 

[postman]

I'm talking about the protest that turned into a riot, helped by the FBI and other dark forces in an effort to forever brand Trump supporters as the bad guys.

You can lead a horse to water.
But you can't make him attack the federal government.
Unless he wants to.

 

[forkup]

Remember what the constitution, and Trump's own lawyers argued.

Article 1 section 3 clause 7

[7] Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Shall, in Constitutional speak, means must.

It's the "according to law" bit that'll get them off. Since SCOTUS decided that the law makes him immune regardless of impeachment. Not defending the ruling simply saying how I think it'll play out.

 

[jknowgood]

Why do you presume they will refuse to testify?

They already have, that's why the are fixing to be arrested.

 

[postman]

It's the "according to law" bit that'll get them off. Since SCOTUS decided that the law makes him immune regardless of impeachment. Not defending the ruling simply saying how I think it'll play out.

Actually it's according to law, at the time the constitution was written which did NOT give the president the broad immunity the current USSC gave him.

The constitution was written to demand punishment for the crime, and any laws written in contravention to the demand for punishment, such as the presidential immunity decision, go against the constitution, and are therefore VOID as unconstitutional.

The current conservative court has to interpret that clause, as they have every constitutional clause, according to the clear text, and meaning at the time it was written.

 

[postman]

They already have, that's why the are fixing to be arrested.

Robert Muller didn't testify.
And he was scheduled before the Clinton's

 

[forkup]

Actually it's according to law, at the time the constitution was written which did NOT give the president the broad immunity the current USSC gave him.

The constitution was written to demand punishment for the crime, and any laws written in contravention to the demand for punishment, such as the presidential immunity decision, go against the constitution, and are therefore VOID as unconstitutional.

The current conservative court has to interpret that clause, as they have every constitutional clause, according to the clear text, and meaning at the time it was written.

They clearly didn't. In fact, in the end I consider this ruling something that history might put in the same vein as Dred Scott in terms of catastrophic consequence. Nevertheless, as it is now a President is immune regardless of impeachment for acts that fall under the scope of his presidential duties.

For that I think the name of every member of the Supreme Court that voted for this should live on in infamy.

 

[Lockback]

You can lead a horse to water.
But you can't make him attack the federal government.
Unless he wants to.

Which is my point: most didn't "attack" anything other than walk through open doors, snap pictures inside the Capitol and peacefully leave.
But when the government wants to tar and feather someone, it's quite easy. For one thing, they have unlimited resources, so they throw the book at some poor grandma from Grand Rapids or something, knowing that she won't be able to afford an attorney to take on the government. And they charge them with some ridiculous felony even though it's a misdemeanor and "generously" offer to accept a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat. Make a political pinata out of everyday Americans. Teach 'em a harsh lesson: You don't go up against Uncle Sam, even if they're lying about you.