Trump was indicted and he has to win the trialYouâre an idiot.
I read it and I understood it.
You maybe didnât read it at all. But if you did, youâre one of the one who didnât understand it.
Lots of people get ducted. Some (like Trump) are completely innocent and itâs the accuser who has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal teamâs contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administrationâs DOJ and its misnamed âspecial counsel.â
It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it â as offered by many of our liberals â are ignorant and quite insipid.
They donât seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberalsâ counter-arguments might carry some weight if theyâd honestly address those legal points. But, they donât. They donât even try.
I suspect itâs because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.
For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:
One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to âcriminalâ cases involves consideration of the import of Trumpâs Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.
Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.
Youâve not managed to prove that you either donât read the Trump brief or you lack any ability to understand any arguments involving anything beyond the most straightforward linear thinking.Oh dear Lord. How did any of you manage to Graduate Middle School?
Fifth Amendment
www.law.cornell.edu
If convicted by the Senate would Trump have been sent straight to prison? No? Then there is no double jeopardy you blithering idiots.
I swear. Every idiotic thing Trump says you fools come out like Moses holding the tablets with the 10 Commandments.
www.usmessageboard.com
Youâve not managed to prove that you either donât read the Trump brief or you lack any ability to understand any arguments involving anything beyond the most straightforward linear thinking.
I would consider having you go back and try to read all the words (including modifiers, etc.), but letâs be real. You still wouldnât grasp anything.
You still donât understand. And youâre wrong.
web.archive.org
capitalresearch.org
Youâre simply and mindlessly repeating yourself. Very unpersuasive.No it isnât. Historically two Presidents faced potential criminal charges from actions while in office. Those two were Nixon, and Clinton. Both were advised by legal council that prosecution was a real threat when they left office.
THE LEGAL AFTERMATH: CITIZEN NIXON AND THE LAW
For Richard Nixon, the sacrifice of his office very likely will not bring even a week of surcease. Within minutes of the resignation speech, Leon Jaworski pointedly announced that so far as...
They had every intention of prosecuting Nixon. The only thing that could stop it was a Pardon.
Pardon of Richard Nixon - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Thatâs the problem with Trumpâs arguments. They go against every thing in American History. Thatâs why I laugh so hard when you guys rush out like Moses with the Ten Commandments.
Clinton? He avoided prosecution. The plea deal?
Bill Clintonâs Plea Bargain
Today, 20 years ago on this date began the final few hours of a presidential administrationâthe Clinton administration. The InfluenceWatch profile of President Bill Clinton reveals that he was concerned as much about his legal jeopardy as his political legacy. The prosecution Clinton was...
Republicans were outraged that he got a sweetheart deal werenât they? Why? If they couldnât prosecute him why was there a plea deal?
Youâre simply and mindlessly repeating yourself. Very unpersuasive.
Nixon could have been prosecuted and so could Bubba as Trump currently is. And the reason for that is that (to date) the Presidential Immunity is limited to civil liability. This is already known and itâs the very point made by team Trump. Their contention remains that the scope of the immunity ought to be formally recognized as also encompassing possible criminal liability for the official actions they undertake within the bounds of their sworn duties.
Go try to figure it out.
I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...Concession (of a kind) and Goodbye.
I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet (Zona's revenge :lol: ): and the terms were simple. I bet that Pres. Obama would NOT get re-elected. Based on everything I have seen tonight, the election actually...
No. Try to follow along. He seeks to expand the already existing immunity into the criminal realm. And of course his motivation includes himself. Given the way this has come about, thatâs hardly a surprise. But the import of his legal proposal goes well beyond his own needs.
Your ignorance prevents you from seeing much of anything.
Why do you smooth brain twats insist on having your to have everything repeated?
He has no honor.I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...
Thus, I am obliged to leave USMB. I have been' assured' by lots of my lib "buddies" that I will come back under some other username. Nope. Gone means gone.
Interesting isn't it. Pure cognitive dissonance. Ahh, its all good. The dreaded 'lib buddies' were right all along.
As he says -- Probably the way he (Liability), was raised.
Have a caution little the dainty reawakened. Youâre once again trodding over the line. Keep the âno family ruleâ in mind, you scumbag.
