Do you agree with this statement

[Marener]

He knowingly executed a 16 year old minor US citizen with no trial, no jury.

He didn’t. The kid was collateral damage as he was ordering an airstrike on terrorists. He wasn’t a target. They didn’t even know he was there.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I do not agree that Biden should have immunity from all his influence pedaling and other seditious acts.


A president should represent Americans rather than foreign interests.

 

[Marener]

Double standards, a way of life for the Democrats

You won’t find any democrat who ever thought any president couldn’t be prosecuted for violating the law without an impeachment first.


Before Trump started arguing this, you wouldn’t find any Republican saying it either. But now Trump says it so you all clap along like a bunch of trained seals.

 

[Orangecat]

It’s never been a question before the left lost its collective mind over Trump. The POTUS needs some level of immunity so he (or she) can make the tough decisions without worrying about landing in prison for it when another party gets voted into power. That being said, you can’t immunize one from, say, sneaking up behind the Speaker of the House and putting a bullet in their head. Context matters. Pretending there was an insurrection doesn’t cut it.

 

[Marener]

It’s never been a question before the left lost its collective mind over Trump. The POTUS needs some level of immunity so he (or she) can make the tough decisions without worrying about landing in prison for it when another party gets voted into power. That being said, you can’t immunize one from, say, sneaking up behind the Speaker of the House and putting a bullet in their head. Context matters. Pretending there was an insurrection doesn’t cut it.

What’s never been a question before?

The history shows that it was assumed the president would be subject to criminal proceedings after leaving office.

That’s why Nixon was pardoned. No one questioned it.

Mueller assumed it in his testimony after his report. No one questioned it.

McConnell said he could be prosecuted, which is why he justified acquitting his impeachment.

Hell, even Trump’s own lawyers said that he could be prosecuted and shouldn’t be impeached in 2021.

 

[Orangecat]

What’s never been a question before?

The history shows that it was assumed the president would be subject to criminal proceedings after leaving office.

That’s why Nixon was pardoned. No one questioned it.

Mueller assumed it in his testimony after his report. No one questioned it.

McConnell said he could be prosecuted, which is why he justified acquitting his impeachment.

Hell, even Trump’s own lawyers said that he could be prosecuted and shouldn’t be impeached in 2021.

It’s a f’n witch hunt, and any rational adult who denies that fact is a hyper-political dumbass. You think no other POTUS ever valued his property for more than someone else thought it was worth? You think no other candidate has questioned the results of an election? STFU with that shit.

 

[Marener]

It’s a f’n witch hunt, and any rational adult who denies that fact is a hyper-political dumbass. You think no other POTUS ever valued his property for more than someone else thought it was worth? You think no other candidate has questioned the results of an election? STFU with that shit.

Property values have nothing to do with this.

Yes, other candidates have questioned the results of an election, but no other candidate attempted to talk state officials into throwing out votes for him and using fake electors to disrupt the counting of electoral votes.

No other candidate send tens of thousands of angry supporters to the Capitol on January 6th to protest the counting.

No other candidate attempted to use the DoJ to say the election was corrupt despite their attestation that there was no evidence to support it.

Any rational adult who minimizes Trump's actions as "questioning an election" is a hyper-political ignorant moron.

 

[Orangecat]

Property values have nothing to do with this.

Yes, other candidates have questioned the results of an election, but no other candidate attempted to talk state officials into throwing out votes for him and using fake electors to disrupt the counting of electoral votes.

No other candidate send tens of thousands of angry supporters to the Capitol on January 6th to protest the counting.

No other candidate attempted to use the DoJ to say the election was corrupt despite their attestation that there was no evidence to support it.

Any rational adult who minimizes Trump's actions as "questioning an election" is a hyper-political ignorant moron.

GFY.

 

[Marener]

GFY.

You should really try thinking for yourself.

It's incredible to see people talk like this presidential immunity is so obvious and clear cut when a few years ago everyone, including Trumps own lawyers, said it didn't exist.

I get whiplash seeing you guys flip flop back and forth, but the real crazy shit is the gaslighting where you pretend it wasn't a question.

 

[Orangecat]

You should really try thinking for yourself.

It's incredible to see people talk like this presidential immunity is so obvious and clear cut when a few years ago everyone, including Trumps own lawyers, said it didn't exist.

I get whiplash seeing you guys flip flop back and forth, but the real crazy shit is the gaslighting where you pretend it wasn't a question.

Again, Moroner, GFY.
All you do is project.

 

[Marener]

Again, Moroner, GFY.
All you do is project.

I can back up what I say.

Trump’s Argument for Immunity in 2024 Is the Opposite of His Stance in 2021

During his second impeachment trial, the former president argued that criminal prosecution was a more appropriate way to seek accountability since he had left office.

www.nytimes.com

But at that February 2021 trial, Mr. Trump, through a different set of lawyers, made the opposite claim: He argued that the Senate could not convict him because he was already out of office, while pointing to the criminal justice system as the legitimate remaining way to seek accountability.
“After he is out of office,” Bruce Castor, one of the impeachment lawyers, said, “you go and arrest him.”
This seeming contradiction was among the complexities about Mr. Trump’s immunity claims that caught the eye of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday. A three-judge panel hearing his challenge to the election subversion case charges seemed skeptical of the argument.

 

[Orangecat]

I can back up what I say.

Trump’s Argument for Immunity in 2024 Is the Opposite of His Stance in 2021

During his second impeachment trial, the former president argued that criminal prosecution was a more appropriate way to seek accountability since he had left office.

www.nytimes.com

But at that February 2021 trial, Mr. Trump, through a different set of lawyers, made the opposite claim: He argued that the Senate could not convict him because he was already out of office, while pointing to the criminal justice system as the legitimate remaining way to seek accountability.
“After he is out of office,” Bruce Castor, one of the impeachment lawyers, said, “you go and arrest him.”
This seeming contradiction was among the complexities about Mr. Trump’s immunity claims that caught the eye of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday. A three-judge panel hearing his challenge to the election subversion case charges seemed skeptical of the argument.

Buzz off, kid, I don’t have time to talk at useful idiots.

 

[Marener]

I feel bad for losers like you who are only capable of repeating the groupthink and not capable of formulating an argument of your own.

 

[Orangecat]

I feel bad for losers like you who are only capable of repeating the groupthink and not capable of formulating an argument of your own.

Projecting again, I see. Lulz.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ten years ago, I would have never agreed to that.

I wouldn't have imagined the Twoparties reacting with such sustained hysteria over an outsider winning the presidency. I would have never dreamed that one party's prosecutors would come up with so many ginn'ed up indictments right before an election year. I thought Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were anomolies who simply took loyalty to their appointers too far.

Now I see that they were capable of it all along. All that was missing was opportunity. When was the last time a president lost his 2nd term re-election bid, only to be the frontrunner for his party's nomination and the predicted winner of the White House four years later?

It's that perfect storm of circumstances: one party in power while the person likely to win is from the other party. The party in power figures, 'why shouldn't we abuse our power? What other reason to have power?'

What we need is not that grant of immunity. What we really need is for the Twoparties to understand that Trump faces the ultimate jury of his peers: the voters. Don't drop all his cases, just put them on hold until that jury speaks in November.

That would be less embarassing for the party currently in power than watching Trump's attorneys outsmart them at every turn, delaying until the election anyway.

 

[OKTexas]

A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function. Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that 'cross the line' must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.

A president should have the exact same protections as congress, they can do pretty much anything they want with impunity.

.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When Trump is in power and his AG prosecutes whoever the Democrats run against his chosen successor, what will you say then?

"Republicans are not allowed to copy?"

You really think that there is a Democrat who is both widely known enough to be the nominee and also so squeaky clean that a prosecutor could not get indictments?

Names?

 

[Clipper]

No, that's pretty nuts.

GIven that removing a president through impeachment is a practical impossibility, the threat of prosecution for crimes after they leave office is the only thing keeping them in line.

Trump's asseaters in the HOR & Senste have already shown twice that they won't hold him accountable for ANYTHING. Now Haley is talking about a pardon for him. That tells you everything we need to know about her because she believes that people like Trump with money & power can do whatever they want to & not be held accountable. Her excuse that the Nation will heal is a crock of shit & she knows it, but couldn't care less if it does or doesn't as long as she's elected.

This Country is saddled with that sociopath because of them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ten years ago, I would have never agreed to that.

I wouldn't have imagined the Twoparties reacting with such sustained hysteria over an outsider winning the presidency. I would have never dreamed that one party's prosecutors would come up with so many ginn'ed up indictments right before an election year. I thought Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were anomolies who simply took loyalty to their appointers too far.

Now I see that they were capable of it all along. All that was missing was opportunity. When was the last time a president lost his 2nd term re-election bid, only to be the frontrunner for his party's nomination and the predicted winner of the White House four years later?

It's that perfect storm of circumstances: one party in power while the person likely to win is from the other party. The party in power figures, 'why shouldn't we abuse our power? What other reason to have power?'

What we need is not that grant of immunity. What we really need is for the Twoparties to understand that Trump faces the ultimate jury of his peers: the voters. Don't drop all his cases, just put them on hold until that jury speaks in November.

That would be less embarassing for the party currently in power than watching Trump's attorneys outsmart them at every turn, delaying until the election anyway.

False equivocation. No other politician has tried to use unconstitutional means to overturn a fair and free presidential election in our countries history. They have been investigating his culpability since it happened, and the extreme MAGANUTs have hindered a fulsome investigation all the way. Let him have his day in court, what's wrong? Is your God of Retribution just another chickenshit?

 

[0311]

False equivocation. No other politician has tried to use unconstitutional means to overturn a fair and free presidential election in our countries history. They have been investigating his culpability since it happened, and the extreme MAGANUTs have hindered a fulsome investigation all the way. Let him have his day in court, what's wrong? Is your God of Retribution just another chickenshit?

Exactly IF P01135809 is so fucking innocent why delay the trial? His cult followers should welcome a speedy trial, they should welcome open testimony. It seems like their hiding something and I wonder what it is.