Trump can be indicted as President

[miketx]

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

Now you know as well I do that crimes don't have to be committed when the regressives wanna nix someone!

 

[miketx]

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

Democrats don’t have to. Republican Bon Mueller is.

Mueller is a regressive liberal pos, no matter if he has an "R" or a "D" after his name.

 

[Avatar4321]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the **** up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

#4 is critical because it establishes the precedent. It has nothing to do with hating Trump.

You’re discussing indicting a president who as of now has committed no crimes. It has everything to do with hating him

 

[eddiew37]

First you guys need a credible crime to accus him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

This is all tertiary to the point of the thread.

"President can't be indicted" is not a defence.

Has anyone said he couldn’t? The fact impeachment exists indicates that it’s possible

A year and a half is BS Repub scum have been after Hillary for 30 years

 

[task0778]

#4 is critical because it establishes the precedent. It has nothing to do with hating Trump.

It establishes precedent in Great Britain, but does nothing in American Jurisprudence. It may establish an historical precedent, but that is irrelevant.

The Mary that was executed was Mary, Queen of Scots and she was never the Queen of England and had nothing to do with that gov't. Ergo, no precedence was set at all. And besides, in English law the reigning monarch has sovereign immunity and cannot be prosecuted. For anything.

 

[Reasonable]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the **** up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

There’s no evidence yet because Mueller hasn’t released it yet.
But I’ve listened to former Watergate prosecutors, Ex CIA agents. Judges, etc and they say there is ample evidence of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Hell the orange idiot admitted obstruction of justice live on TV in his Lester Holt interview.

Son I read voraciously, I do it every day. The ONLY place you could have "heard" that is on the most far Left sources out there.

Former Watergate prosecutors are far left sources?
Ex CIA operatives are far left sources.
You’re one partisan butthead.

Post them kid. I don't even like Trump I just like you less than he. You are an imbecile. Now, CITE those folks or shut up.

Malcolm Nance- CIA
Jill Wine Banks. Former Watergate prosecutor.
Any other questions ?

 

[Avatar4321]

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

Heck I don’t need proof. Just reasonable suspicion. They don’t have that

 

[Care4all]

First you guys need a credible crime to accuse him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

well, keep those fingers crossed! maybe it'll help!

 

[Reasonable]

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

Democrats don’t have to. Republican Bon Mueller is.

Mueller is a regressive liberal pos, no matter if he has an "R" or a "D" after his name.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

First you guys need a credible crime to accus him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

This is all tertiary to the point of the thread.

"President can't be indicted" is not a defence.

Read the Constitution dumb ass!

 

[Doc1]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the **** up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

There’s no evidence yet because Mueller hasn’t released it yet.
But I’ve listened to former Watergate prosecutors, Ex CIA agents. Judges, etc and they say there is ample evidence of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Hell the orange idiot admitted obstruction of justice live on TV in his Lester Holt interview.

Son I read voraciously, I do it every day. The ONLY place you could have "heard" that is on the most far Left sources out there.

Former Watergate prosecutors are far left sources?
Ex CIA operatives are far left sources.
You’re one partisan butthead.

Post them kid. I don't even like Trump I just like you less than he. You are an imbecile. Now, CITE those folks or shut up.

Malcolm Nance- CIA
Jill Wine Banks. Former Watergate prosecutor.
Any other questions ?

Post their words dumbass, name dropping doesn't cut it. Post their words.

 

[Avatar4321]

"FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath"

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath

Comey: FBI didn’t put Clinton under oath

Clinton Not Under Oath During FBI Interview, Which Was Not Transcribed

FBI didn't put Hillary Clinton under oath for her email interview | Daily Mail Online

Dumbass

We’re talking about Trump getting indicted and you run to Hillary where it’s safe and warm for you.

But you are the one who brought up Hillary

 

[Reasonable]

"FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath"

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath

Comey: FBI didn’t put Clinton under oath

Clinton Not Under Oath During FBI Interview, Which Was Not Transcribed

FBI didn't put Hillary Clinton under oath for her email interview | Daily Mail Online

Dumbass

We’re talking about Trump getting indicted and you run to Hillary where it’s safe and warm for you.

Kid you posted the Hillary meme, not me.

Liar. The first time I mentioned her was when I said you need to run into her arms. KID.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Trump will not be indicted, nor will he be impeached. On the other hand, the evidence of Hillary colluding with the Russians along with massive corruption within the FBI and DOJ.is mounting. Trump will be vindicated.

First you guys need a credible crime to accuse him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the **** up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

#4 is critical because it establishes the precedent. It has nothing to do with hating Trump.

Queen Mary was President of the United States? STFU dumb ass!

 

[Avatar4321]

First you guys need a credible crime to accus him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one

This is all tertiary to the point of the thread.

"President can't be indicted" is not a defence.

Has anyone said he couldn’t? The fact impeachment exists indicates that it’s possible

A year and a half is BS Repub scum have been after Hillary for 30 years

Then she should stop doing shady s$&@

 

[Avatar4321]

#4 is critical because it establishes the precedent. It has nothing to do with hating Trump.

It establishes precedent in Great Britain, but does nothing in American Jurisprudence. It may establish an historical precedent, but that is irrelevant.

The Mary that was executed was Mary, Queen of Scots and she was never the Queen of England and had nothing to do with that gov't. Ergo, no precedence was set at all. And besides, in English law the reigning monarch has sovereign immunity and cannot be prosecuted. For anything.

I would add the execution was politically motivated not criminally

 

[LA RAM FAN]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that President Trump has committed any crime for which he could be indicted.

2. The view that he could be indicted is somewhat unsettled, some say it's possible and others say no. From what I can tell, the Constitution doesn't really say one way or the other. But so far this discussion has no more substance than a fart in the wind.

3. The Dems would sure as hell have to have an air-tight case, in which case Trump might resign. But knowing him, probably not. Maybe you guys ought to just shut the **** up and start thinking about winning the election in 2020. Hint: this ceaseless Trump bitching and bashing is getting really old, considering you got jack shit to complain about in terms if impeachment and indictment.

4. Queen Mary? 500 fuckin' years ago? Jesus dude, you guys do like to stretch the absurdity of your absolute Trump hatred to extremes.

 

[Reasonable]

Trump will not be indicted, nor will he be impeached. On the other hand, the evidence of Hillary colluding with the Russians along with massive corruption within the FBI and DOJ.is mounting. Trump will be vindicated.

First you guys need a credible crime to accuse him of.

Since you’ve been looking for well over a year and a half I don’t anticipate you finding one.

Mueller’s obstruction of justice case against Trump looks damning
So how are the Rams making out this year.

 

[Avatar4321]

View attachment 171001

'Trump can be indicted as President'

There's just 1 problem...

Democrats stll can't even prove a crime was committed warranting an investigation...

Democrats don’t have to. Republican Bon Mueller is.

Mueller is a regressive liberal pos, no matter if he has an "R" or a "D" after his name.

Well that proves it. Only deranged criminals bowl