Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[forkup]

We KNOW they didn’t do their job properly. We have lawyer Page instructing Agent Strozk to go easy on Hillary because she might be the next president.

They’re not supposed to presume guilt no matter how much personal dislike they have.

Cover.

If not for the judge putting a stop to it, the DOJ was about to give Hunter a sweetheart deal unavailable to people not so protected.

In the case of Trump it was clearly political, based on their own words.

You seriously believe that Kleinsmith acted on his own? If so, what was his motivation, other than pleasing his Trump hating bosses? Why did he stick his neck out like that in the first place?

No, sir, not just private political bias. There were calls to action and promises of action. I.e. will stop it. What do you think he meant by that?

Do you have to look at everything in context. One or two mistakes could be justified but every “mistake” they make always seems to go against Trump. That tells me they are no longer mistakes. That tells any thinking person that. I’m sorry that you have chosen not to be in that category.

Do you have to look at everything in context. One or two mistakes could be justified but every “mistake” they make always seems to go against Trump.

I'm just going to answer to this and cut it out. This is simply tedious.

Let's start again with pointing out that your last sentence was YET AGAIN begging the question. you simply asserted instead of supporting your claim. And NO, not every mistake has gone against Trump. No matter how much you assert it. To start with a dozy. James Comey literally days before the 2016 general election. Went on national television and publicly stated that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton because they had found another cache of emails. The margins where tight and it's perfectly possible that, that statement was what cost her the election.

I repeat, it's very possible that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because of the FBI.

This was in direct contradiction with FBI and DOJ policy in how to handle politically loaded cases. (and something I defended by the way)

The current president's son is at this very moment being indicted. This is most assuredly in Trump's political interest.

The political appointees of the DOJ under Bill Barr ROUTINELY overrode department guidelines AND even line prosecutors in defense of Trump allies. Something I'm willing to support if you want.

So, I gave 3 examples, I would even say glaring examples of actions of the DOJ and FBI to the benefit of Trump, before he was elected, during his administration and currently. Those are objective facts.

 

[forkup]

I'm just going to answer to this and cut it out. This is simply tedious.

Let's start again with pointing out that your last sentence was YET AGAIN begging the question. you simply asserted instead of supporting your claim. Because NO, not every mistake has gone against Trump. No matter how much you assert it. To start with a dozy. James Comey literally days before the 2016 general election. Went on national television and publicly stated that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton because they had found another cache of emails. The margins where tight and it's perfectly possible that, that statement was what cost her the election.

I repeat, it's very possible that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because of the FBI.

This was in direct contradiction with FBI and DOJ policy in how to handle politically loaded cases. (and something I defended by the way)

The current president's son is at this very moment being indicted. This is most assuredly in Trump's political interest.

The DOJ under Bill Barr ROUTINELY overrode department guidelines AND even line prosecutors in defense of Trump allies. Something I'm willing to support if you want.

So, I gave 3 examples, I would even say glaring examples of actions of the DOJ and FBI to the benefit of Trump, before he was elected, during his administration and currently. Those are objective facts.

Here another example from today.

Trump 14th Amendment ballot eligibility challenger arrested on federal tax fraud charges

Former President Trump's ballot eligibility challenger, John Anthony Castro, is facing a 33-count indictment for allegedly filing fraudulent tax returns.

www.foxnews.com

The fact of the matter is that you are simply blind to everything and anything that is contradictory to your conclusions.

And the reason you are vulnerable to that, is because you don't distinguish for yourself between your opinion and fact. You don't allow for yourself the possibility to be wrong, so you ignore, and I doubt you see, the glaring holes in your reasoning.

 

[Crepitus]

The law is an ass, not an elephant; you need to educate yourself about how it functions.

That cartoon isn't about the law, it's about republicans making conflicting excuses for their orange idol.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm just going to answer to this and cut it out. This is simply tedious.

So, you want to quit the thread, but you just have to get the last word in? Real mature.

Let's start again with pointing out that your last sentence was YET AGAIN begging the question. you simply asserted instead of supporting your claim. And NO, not every mistake has gone against Trump. No matter how much you assert it. To start with a dozy. James Comey literally days before the 2016 general election. Went on national television and publicly stated that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton because they had found another cache of emails. The margins where tight and it's perfectly possible that, that statement was what cost her the election.

He made a mistake in acting to soon to clear Hillary of all charges, well before the investigation was complete. Once the investigation was re-opened, he had no choice but to announce it. But he could have just as easily let the investigation play out to the end, however it led, rather than seek to assure voters that Hillary would not be indicted. He was the perfect fall guy for Loretta Elizabeth after her meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.

As soon as Lynch said she was going to "recuse herself," he should have said, fine. I'll present my evidence to Lynch's second in command and let them make the decision. She knew his ego would not resist the change to get on the world stage and be Hillary's savior.

I repeat, it's very possible that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because of the FBI.

What? Strzok and Page did not do enough to help her?

This was in direct contradiction with FBI and DOJ policy in how to handle politically loaded cases. (and something I defended by the way)

The current president's son is at this very moment being indicted. This is most assuredly in Trump's political interest.

If it were a serious attempt to convict him. The evidence is clear. The DOJ already sat on it long enough to let statutes of limitation run out.

The political appointees of the DOJ under Bill Barr ROUTINELY overrode department guidelines AND even line prosecutors in defense of Trump allies. Something I'm willing to support if you want.

So, I gave 3 examples, I would even say glaring examples of actions of the DOJ and FBI to the benefit of Trump, before he was elected, during his administration and currently. Those are objective facts.

When your opponent is as guilty as the Bidens are, any actions to investigate them helps you. But that doesn't mean that the DOJ is doing all it can to prosecute the crimes, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are treating Biden the way they treated Trump for seven or eight years.

You do at least admit that the "Russia Collusion" was a hoax, yes?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Here another example from today.

Trump 14th Amendment ballot eligibility challenger arrested on federal tax fraud charges

Former President Trump's ballot eligibility challenger, John Anthony Castro, is facing a 33-count indictment for allegedly filing fraudulent tax returns.

www.foxnews.com

The fact of the matter is that you are simply blind to everything and anything that is contradictory to your conclusions.

And the reason you are vulnerable to that, is because you don't distinguish for yourself between your opinion and fact. You don't allow for yourself the possibility to be wrong, so you ignore, and I doubt you see, the glaring holes in your reasoning.

Lol!

I thought you were just going to answer and then cut it out. You cannot help yourself at this point. It's a sickness. Get help.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Man gets ass kicked for hours... declares victory... story at 11

 

[BlindBoo]

Where did you come up with THAT law?

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

 

[MinTrut]

That cartoon isn't about the law

Not intentionally, no.

it's about republicans making conflicting excuses for their orange idol.

The cartoonist stumbled upon the law's asinine ways, yes.

 

[MinTrut]

Lol!

I thought you were just going to answer and then cut it out. You cannot help yourself at this point. It's a sickness. Get help.

Now you're getting it; can't say I didn't warn you.

But yeah, this entire situation is ultimately a sideshow to the main witch hunt.

 

[MinTrut]

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

Obama's murder of OBL was neither necessary nor appropriate.

But it was convenient as all Hell.

If OBL had been captured, the things he would have revealed in court...

 

[Crepitus]

Not intentionally, no.

The cartoonist stumbled upon the law's asinine ways, yes.

I'm afraid you've missed the point.

tRump's lawyers are using the reverse of the argument the senate republicans used to get him out of the second impeachment.

Moscow Mitch's statement during the impeachment:



And now, as you know, his lawyers are arguing the exact opposite. They are saying that he must be impeached before he can be charged with a crime.

This isn't about "the law", it's about desperate attempts to avoid punishment for his crimes.

 

[Dekster]

Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked.

After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”

Trump doubles down after DC hearing: âMost people agree that weâre entitled to immunityâ â as it happened

If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith

www.theguardian.com

This is not how democracies run. It is how imperial dictators run things. The US fought against this but perhaps the founders had not considered a trump when forming the constitution.

Please. The founding fathers were fond of dueling. Andrew Jackson killed a man for insulting his wife and was still elected and sitting Vice-President Burr killed the Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton.

 

[toobfreak]

Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question​

Hardly. If presidents can be so attacked after being in office on such specious grounds, it will effectively inhibit the entire Executive Ofiice rendering the most important branch of government moot and under the control of congress.

Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.

You mean she offered up a worthless extreme hypothetical which does not exist and is only designed to try to kill Trump's defense.

This is not how democracies run. It is how imperial dictators run things.

A). You don't know the first thing about democracy.
B). You just indicted the democrats themselves while being too obtuse to even realize it. What is undemocratic are these judges, lawyers and court hearings which are wholly outside of the law.

 

[toobfreak]

Moscow Mitch's statement during the impeachment:

Fuck Moscow Mitch. You just proved the worthless bum is just another never Trumper.

 

[Crepitus]

Fuck Moscow Mitch. You just proved the worthless bum is just another never Trumper.

tRumpling please!

You know you love Vladimir just as much as he does!

 

[MinTrut]

I'm afraid you've missed the point.

One of us has, yes.

tRump's lawyers are using the reverse of the argument the senate republicans used to get him out of the second impeachment.

Moscow Mitch's statement during the impeachment:



And now, as you know, his lawyers are arguing the exact opposite. They are saying that he must be impeached before he can be charged with a crime.

The law is an ass, yes.

This isn't about "the law"

In fact it is.

it's about desperate attempts to avoid punishment for his crimes.

No; it's how the law works - in asinine ways.

Shall I explain it for you again?

 

[toobfreak]

tRumpling please!
You know you love Vladimir just as much as he does!

Just as much as you love being shanked up the ass with a saguaro cactus?

 

[jc456]

Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked.

After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”

Trump doubles down after DC hearing: âMost people agree that weâre entitled to immunityâ â as it happened

If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith

www.theguardian.com

This is not how democracies run. It is how imperial dictators run things. The US fought against this but perhaps the founders had not considered a trump when forming the constitution.

Hilarious

 

[jc456]

It’s really ashame how demofks don’t understand the law they live under

 

[forkup]

It was a bullshit argument.

Seal Team 6 would never carry out an illegal order.

Trump's lawyer should have had a better answer.

The problem is that that isn't a good answer.

Whether or not a military unit would carry out an illegal order has no bearing on the question. Seal team Six isn't asking for immunity. Trump is.

Neither could they give the answer that giving the order would not be an official act by the president, because their contention is that the intent of the official act is irrelevant to the immunity claim.

Meaning if they can show the act itself falls within the "outer boundaries of presidential duty" the intent of those actions doesn't matter even if it's illegal, and clearly done for personal reasons.

Think about the implications of that argument.

The guy you all insist is clearly innocent, and is being charged for political reasons. Is not arguing that he should be immune if the intention of a certain official act can be reasonably be asserted to fall within the capacity of the official role as President even if what he's doing is illegal.

Something that at least have some precedent as a legal concept.

Instead, he's arguing that even if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he's abusing his office as President for personal gain. He can't be prosecuted as long as the order is an official act. (Interpreting official act as broadly as possible.)

If that sounds wrong to you it's because it is.

Why would you do that, if what you did isn't illegal and you didn't abuse your office and acted in good faith?