I already know what's coming, if it's presented through the lens of CoH: Total exoneration!More to come
I already know what's coming, if it's presented through the lens of CoH: Total exoneration!More to come
I don’t think there are many lawyers, if any, who would have advised that Trumps conduct were crimes as alleged in the Bragg case, the DC case, or the Georgia case. And throw in the James civil case. and we see all of this involve very unique and unprecedented applications of the law. They are abuses of the system aimed at Trump, not legitimate applications of the law aimed at protecting a public interest.
The documents case is different. But just in the last few days, the Judge announced she will release documents about the GSA and these documents that the Biden Justice Department desperately tried to keep from public view. More to come on that one.
I’ve heard and read that argument often.CoH, always impressed with the way you word things.
For example, you used the phrase "unique and unprecidented".
Couldn't this phrase also apply to actions taken by President Trump which have resulted in the court cases ?
OhSince when is undermining the election in the scope of presidential duties?
The fact that you are comfortable with someone interfering in the very election that they are running in says a lot.
That was campaign Trump. Campaign stuff has nothing to do with presidential duties. Read up on Hatch Act. Trump and his cronies got caught ignoring that numerous times.
So you are saying Trump wasn't doing official duties when he was messing with the election.
Did your propaganda feed tell you that?So you are saying Trump wasn't doing official duties when he was messing with the election.
Glad we are on the same page.
And no, investigating Trump on his election bs isn't an issue..
That will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things where he forgot to dot an I or cross a T somewhere. It simply can't be allowed or the office wouldn't be able to exist. Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn. What happens to the next Harry Truman when his bookkeeper lables a reimbursement to his lawyer a legal expense?If the Supremes decides a President has absolute immunity Biden should trek over and shoot a handful of them to test the ruling.
That will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things where he forgot to dot an I or cross a T somewhere. It simply can't be allowed or the office wouldn't be able to exist. Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn. What happens to the next Harry Truman when his bookkeeper lables a reimbursement to his lawyer a legal expense?
Apparently you can do all those things according to trump defendersThat will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things where he forgot to dot an I or cross a T somewhere. It simply can't be allowed or the office wouldn't be able to exist. Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn. What happens to the next Harry Truman when his bookkeeper lables a reimbursement to his lawyer a legal expense?
trump is a traitor
You can if you become a Fascist dictator.Apparently you can do all those things according to trump defenders
That will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things
I like you Willdog. Would you be willing to accept the nomination at the convention when we kick Joe to the curb? We’d give you Whitmer as your running mate, or would you insist on Sharpton?You can if you become a Fascist dictator.
Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn.
I thought he was joking with us 🤣🤣
You don't understand true love.I thought he was joking with us 🤣🤣
1. It was hyperboleThat will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things where he forgot to dot an I or cross a T somewhere. It simply can't be allowed or the office wouldn't be able to exist. Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn. What happens to the next Harry Truman when his bookkeeper lables a reimbursement to his lawyer a legal expense?
That’s funny. The reason the fencing started in DC was the J6 gang.
I think abortion and the S. Ct.That’s funny. The reason the fencing started in DC was the J6 gang.
They’re talking about the S. Ct. Fencing was put up after the abortion decision was leaked. I don’t think they had fencing around Jan 6 at the courtThat was after J6.
Or assassinating an American citizen, invading another country and killing millions, molesting your own daughter, etc. The line has to be drawn.The courts are charged with drawing lines. They decide where the line is between the big shit and the trivial in nearly all cases, no matter who is involved. This case won't change that. The Supremes will have to draw a line somewhere between assassinating your opponent or fomenting rebellion or stealing state secrets and jaywalking.
The supreme court is bought and paid for.The courts are charged with drawing lines. They decide where the line is between the big shit and the trivial in nearly all cases, no matter who is involved. This case won't change that. The Supremes will have to draw a line somewhere between assassinating your opponent or fomenting rebellion or stealing state secrets and jaywalking.
You would not like me. I like Kamala Harris at least, she gives a damn about black people.I like you Willdog. Would you be willing to accept the nomination at the convention when we kick Joe to the curb? We’d give you Whitmer as your running mate, or would you insist on Sharpton?
1. I'm going to regret wading into this mess.Criminal law has to have consistency and predictability. Unprecedented, unusual, and tortured applications of the law in order to target an individual is not consistent with any view of due process.
Technically, that’s wrong. The question involved the President’s ordering a Seal team to take out a political rival.Trumps lawyer argued that very thing, didn't he?
Or am I just mis-remembering?
Well us laymen see "Unprecedented" or "unusual" or "NEVER DONE IN THE HISTORY" of the country..... Claiming that unprecedented or unusual prosecutions aren't appropriate doesn't further due process. It simply rewards novel criminals.
I’m just messing with you, Will. I actually like Kamala just fine. I think there’s only about 3 of us on this board that do. 😊You would not like me. I like Kamala Harris at least, she gives a damn about black people.
Some considerations from a cross-ideological group:1. I'm going to regret wading into this mess.
2. Criminal law not only does not have to have consistency or predictability, but it isn't possible to have it within our system. Every jury will have random jurors. They will reach different conclusions from similar evidence.
3. Claiming that unprecedented or unusual prosecutions aren't appropriate doesn't further due process. It simply rewards novel criminals.
4. Due process doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a due process violation. Due process includes notice, the right to respond, and several other protections, but it doesn't include the right to predictability or consistency, especially within criminal law.
Right. At the Court, but I said in DC. And that started when they had to fence in after J6.They’re talking about the S. Ct. Fencing was put up after the abortion decision was leaked. I don’t think they had fencing around Jan 6 at the court
Has Trump actually molested her? Or just talked about it? I mean it wouldn’t surprise me but I’m surprised you admit it.Or assassinating an American citizen, invading another country and killing millions, molesting your own daughter, etc. The line has to be drawn.
I’m sure it will be mostly peaceful
You used a few polysyllabic words in that post, and I didn't think you were capable of that. However, the content is as stupid as ever.That will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things where he forgot to dot an I or cross a T somewhere. It simply can't be allowed or the office wouldn't be able to exist. Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn. What happens to the next Harry Truman when his bookkeeper lables a reimbursement to his lawyer a legal expense?
3. Claiming that unprecedented or unusual prosecutions aren't appropriate doesn't further due process. It simply rewards novel criminals.
Some considerations from a cross-ideological group:
How to tell whether a government investigation is weaponized
These key questions can help assess whether a government investigation or prosecution is appropriate — or an abuse of power.protectdemocracy.org
Frik’s post misses that prosecutors aren’t supposed to bring politics and bias to their job. Brad’s link is spot onBrad's link seems to be in conflict frikken's point above.