Case Against Former FBI Director James Comey Dismissed

[jknowgood]

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

Don't know about that, but hopefully the Clinton's are going to jail.

 

[postman]

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

I believe the actual Constitution must override any judicial decisions that conflict with it's clear text, and meaning at the time it was written (according to the position of the current conservative supreme court).

It's the basis under which they overturned roe v wade, and other rights that weren't explicit in the original (or amended) constitution.

Trumps own lawyers argued for that conclusion. Saying that in order to punish the president, he needed to be impeached and convicted, in order to face criminal liability.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–939
DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

[July 1, 2024]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

It states that an impeachment judgment “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.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added).

Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”).

 

[postman]

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.

But out of the crowd of thousands, you had about 1,600 of them that committed serious misdemeanors and felonies.
From entering restricted security zones, to destruction of doors, windows, furniture etc.
You even had the theft of one of the congress's laptops, a podium, and other misc paperwork, and devices.

 

[forkup]

I believe the actual Constitution must override any judicial decisions that conflict with it's clear text, and meaning at the time it was written (according to the position of the current conservative supreme court).

It's the basis under which they overturned roe v wade, and other rights that weren't explicit in the original (or amended) constitution.

Trumps own lawyers argued for that conclusion. Saying that in order to punish the president, he needed to be impeached and convicted, in order to face criminal liability.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–939
DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

[July 1, 2024]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

It states that an impeachment judgment “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.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added).

Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”).

I have a bit more nuanced view. I think it's folly to rely solely on the framers of the Constitution and it's clear text. I think a more holistic view should be used. If for no other reason that the framers of the Constitution couldn't possibly foresee all the unintended consequences of the text. At such times when there's a clear conflict between the text and the intention of what that text intents to achieve debate is possible. There are plenty of contemporary sources to explain the intent.

Whether or not the President of the United States should be immune from prosecution is not one of those edge cases.

Neither do I appreciate Supreme Court Justices changing their philosophy on how they approach their job according to circumstances. Either you believe like you do, in which case your conclusions are based on that, or you believe like me and your conclusions follow that vain.

What these people did is change their argument based on conditions and that's not jurisprudence but activism.

 

[Lockback]

But out of the crowd of thousands, you had about 1,600 of them that committed serious misdemeanors and felonies.
From entering restricted security zones, to destruction of doors, windows, furniture etc.
You even had the theft of one of the congress's laptops, a podium, and other misc paperwork, and devices.

BFD.
Without question, the most overrated, overplayed, overhyped political event in American history.
We may never know the whole story but I am confident in saying we were lied to repeatedly about what happened and that Nancy Pelosi & Company were complicit in setting up a situation that would help their side and hurt Trump and that a whole lot of regular Americans who were there to exercise their right to protest had their lives pretty much ruined by a goose-stepping Biden Gestapo until Trump pardoned them.
Luckily for America, as bad as things got under the Joe Biden, the Worst President In The History of the United States, we had the wisdom to return Donald Trump to the White House so that justice may still be served against those who attempted to mislead the entire country.

 

[Lockback]

I have a bit more nuanced view. I think it's folly to rely solely on the framers of the Constitution and it's clear text.

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

 

[forkup]

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Interesting... I would ask what you disagree about and explain the reasoning but that's not your style as has been established.

In any case if you disagree know this. The Constitution's clear text clearly states that Presidents can be convicted of crimes. If the framers of that time wanted to carve out an exception for that principle they would have said so. They didn't. Yet this Supreme Court filled with so called originalists all of a sudden figured "well actually".

 

[Lockback]

Interesting... I would ask what you disagree about and explain the reasoning but that's not your style as has been established.

In any case if you disagree know this. The Constitution's clear text clearly states that Presidents can be convicted of crimes. If the framers of that time wanted to carve out an exception for that principle they would have said so. They didn't, yet this Supreme Court filled with so called originalists all of a sudden figured "well actually".

Well, I was going to give you a detailed answer but since you're an asshole and also I have company for Thanksgiving, I won't. And a hearty **** you too.

 

[forkup]

Well, I was going to give you a detailed answer but since you're an asshole and also I have company for Thanksgiving, I won't. And a hearty **** you too.

Oh chucks, you would have actually defended your position for the first time today if only I've been nicer to you?

I'm so disappointed that I won't benefit from the wisdom of someone who thinks a claim can be defended by a claim. Or in this case feign indignance and still not answer.

 

[Lockback]

Oh chucks, you would have actually defended your position for the first time today if only I've been nicer to you?

I couldn't care less what you think.

I'm so disappointed that I won't benefit from the wisdom of someone who thinks a claim can be defended by a claim. Or in this case feign indignance and still not answer.

Your side loves violence and sedition.
Well, be careful. It can really bite you in the ass.
Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[forkup]

I couldn't care less what you think.


Your side loves violence and sedition.
Well, be careful. It can really bite you in the ass.
Don't say I didn't warn you.

Warn me against what? Pointing out that you haven't so much as attempted to answer any premise.

The only thing you're showing is that you have the self awareness of a fruit fly. You complain about " my side" loving violence while issuing a thinly veiled threat.

The irony here is so thick I'm surprised you can breathe through it.

I would say it's funny but it actually isn't.

 

[Lockback]

Warn me against what? Pointing out that you haven't so much as attempted to answer any premise.

The only thing you're showing is that you have the self awareness of a fruit fly. You complain about " my side" loving violence while issuing a thinly veiled threat.

The irony here is so thick I'm surprised you can breathe through it.

I would say it's funny but it actually isn't.

It's no thinly veiled threat. It's a clear warning: your side continues to be more and more and more violent.
And at some point, something is going to blow. And then the violence will be turned on you.
That's not a threat. It's just Truth.

 

[Staidhup]

So, not the party that abused the justice system was the one who used an illegally appointed prosecutor to pursue a personal vendetta from the president.

Not a case of personal vendetta rather holding one accountable for obstruction of Justice, least not the trust of the American People they swore to represent and protect.

 

[forkup]

It's no thinly veiled threat. It's a clear warning: your side continues to be more and more and more violent.
And at some point, something is going to blow. And then the violence will be turned on you.
That's not a threat. It's just Truth.

As I said, a fruit fly.

You’re now claiming that saying my ideology, and not me personally, will expose me to violence somehow isn’t a threat.

That’s classic gaslighting. People who do it think they’re “winning” because it shows loyalty to their side and annoys whoever they’re arguing with.

But it doesn’t irritate me. I just see someone willing, or pretending, to be an idiot out of partisan loyalty.

And when someone publicly advertises that they’re an idiot, I don’t feel threatened.
I feel like I won.

 

[Lockback]

As I said, a fruit fly.

You’re now claiming that saying my ideology, and not me personally, will expose me to violence somehow isn’t a threat.

That’s classic gaslighting. People who do it think they’re “winning” because it shows loyalty to their side and annoys whoever they’re arguing with.

But it doesn’t irritate me. I just see someone willing, or pretending, to be an idiot out of partisan loyalty.

And when someone publicly advertises that they’re an idiot, I don’t feel threatened.
I feel like I won.

The only thing you've won is the Most Dense Award.
The idiot partisan is the clown who refuses to stand up to his precious party and announce, "Your language and actions of the last few years have made America a more dangerous place. By completely ignoring the obvious link between my party and increased violence, I will no longer be a part of it. By referring to Trump as a "fascist" and "Nazi" repeatedly - which isn't supported in any way, shape or form by facts, you have ratcheted up the invective to a point where people who are easily misled and angry are killing people, thinking they're justified."
You get the idea.
Or, come to think of it, maybe you don't.

 

[forkup]

The only thing you've won is the Most Dense Award.
The idiot partisan is the clown who refuses to stand up to his precious party and announce, "Your language and actions of the last few years have made America a more dangerous place. By completely ignoring the obvious link between my party and increased violence, I will no longer be a part of it. By referring to Trump as a "fascist" and "Nazi" repeatedly - which isn't supported in any way, shape or form by facts, you have ratcheted up the invective to a point where people who are easily misled and angry are killing people, thinking they're justified."
You get the idea.
Or, come to think of it, maybe you don't.

I didn't perform actions at all. So whenever you say MY actions...Bla Bla Bla. What your actually saying is that YOU react out of partisan loyalty. Not me. I wouldn't dream of laying accusations at people's feet because of ideology. I'm able to differentiate between you and your ideology.

So every post you make is not so much a rebuttal as it is a confession. That's why I keep on saying you have the self-awareness of a fruit fly.

As for violence. Paul Pelosi getting his head bashed in is also violence. The 2 Democratic lawmakers who got killed in Michigan are just as dead as Charlie Kirk. The cop who lost his eye during Jan 6th won't grow it back.

The difference between us 2 is that I don't try to minimize or justify violence according to the "side" commiting it. I wouldn't try to conflate what other people do and lay it at the feet of someone who didn't do those things. You do.

So go ahead anything more you want to get of your chest about me/confess to..

 

[Lockback]

I didn't perform actions at all. So whenever you say MY actions...Bla Bla Bla. What your actually saying is that YOU react out of partisan loyalty. Not me. I wouldn't dream of laying accusations at people's feet because of ideology. I'm able to differentiate between you and your ideology.

So every post you make is not so much a rebuttal as it is a confession. That's why I keep on saying you have the self-awareness of a fruit fly.

You have the ego of a psychopath.

As for violence. Paul Pelosi getting his head bashed in is also violence. The 2 Democratic lawmakers who got killed in Michigan are just as dead as Charlie Kirk. The cop who lost his eye during Jan 6th won't grow it back.

Nobody is excusing violence, particularly me. But the ratio of violence committed for political reasons is about 30:1 in favor of the Left.
I have seen zero evidence that Paul Pelosi's attacker was motivated by poltitics. In fact, the whole thing has been covered up, from what I can see and there are some very interesting theories about what might have transpired ...
The murdered of the 2 Democrat lawmakers apparently was ... wait for it ... another Democrat.
So your arguments are weak to non-existent.

The difference between us 2 is that I don't try to minimize or justify violence according to the "side" commiting it. I wouldn't try to conflate what other people do and lay it at the feet of someone who didn't do those things. You do.

So go ahead anything more you want to get of your chest about me/confess to..

Blah. Blah. Blah. Garbage.

 

[forkup]

You have the ego of a psychopath.

Nobody is excusing violence, particularly me. But the ratio of violence committed for political reasons is about 30:1 in favor of the Left.
I have seen zero evidence that Paul Pelosi's attacker was motivated by poltitics. In fact, the whole thing has been covered up, from what I can see and there are some very interesting theories about what might have transpired ...
The murdered of the 2 Democrat lawmakers apparently was ... wait for it ... another Democrat.
So your arguments are weak to non-existent.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Garbage.

You minimizing violence.

Which is my point: most didn't "attack" anything other than walk through open doors, snap pictures inside the Capitol and peacefully leave.

Without question, the most overrated, overplayed, overhyped political event in American history.

You justifying violence.

It's a clear warning: your side continues to be more and more and more violent.
And at some point, something is going to blow. And then the violence will be turned on you.

As for the rest. Take responsibility for what you say. Instead of trying to put your framework of thinking on me.

 

[Lockback]

You minimizing violence.

You lying.

You justifying violence.

You lying again.

As for the rest. Take responsibility for what you say. Instead of trying to put your framework of thinking on me.

You continuing to lie.

 

[forkup]

You lying.

You lying again.

You continuing to lie.

Lol yea don't trust my lying eyes. By the way since we are on the subject of lying.

Multiple Michigan members of Congress may have been on Minnesota assassins’ hit list • Michigan Advance All Democrats on the list

David DePape: Paul Pelosi hammer suspect was into conspiracies

David DePape thought Nancy Pelosi was part of a plot to steal votes from Donald Trump, his trial hears.

www.bbc.com

Believed because he thought people stole votes from Trump according to his lawyer. Same as you if I'm not mistaken.