The indictments have helped Trump .. politically .. in Republican primary ... just like Democrats hoped.whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
Trump charged by Justice Department for efforts to overturn 2020 election
55,889 Views |
568 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Jack Bauer
whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
I supposed I would have to be classified as a "never Trumper" since I never voted for him and will not vote for him now, but I am certainly not cheering on his prosecution. I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law. It seems to me to be a very dangerous precedent for many reasons.
These charges are bs and you know it.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
No.Osodecentx said:The indictments have helped Trump .. politically .. in Republican primary ... just like Democrats hoped.whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
It's the complete opposite. There's a massive margin in all polling showing Trump is a huge threat to Dems.
They literally want to disqualify him. Any GOP candidate right now will not get more than 50M votes making the presidency an easy win for Dems.
OkayDoc Holliday said:No.Osodecentx said:The indictments have helped Trump .. politically .. in Republican primary ... just like Democrats hoped.whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
It's the complete opposite. There's a massive margin in all polling showing Trump is a huge threat to Dems.
They literally want to disqualify him. Any GOP candidate right now will not get more than 50M votes making the presidency an easy win for Dems.
Stormy's hush money, Agree 100%Doc Holliday said:These charges are bs and you know it.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
Documents, tick tack. Probably accurate but let's face it more of an Administrative action.
2020 Election, sorry we differ. He did things that need to be resolved by the Courts.
Now if he is found innocent or the charges are thrown out, I will be the first to say you were right.
Seriously, I think this comes down to how well the lawyers do their presentation.FLBear5630 said:Stormy's hush money, Agree 100%Doc Holliday said:These charges are bs and you know it.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
Documents, tick tack. Probably accurate but let's face it more of an Administrative action.
2020 Election, sorry we differ. He did things that need to be resolved by the Courts.
Now if he is found innocent or the charges are thrown out, I will be the first to say you were right.
A reasonable jury could go either way on some of the most serious charges.
One mistake in each case could decide the verdict.
I don't disagree. I do believe Trump walked a fine line, it looks like he went over that line with the Georgia stuff, that is the one where I see the most danger to Trump.Oldbear83 said:Seriously, I think this comes down to how well the lawyers do their presentation.FLBear5630 said:Stormy's hush money, Agree 100%Doc Holliday said:These charges are bs and you know it.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
Documents, tick tack. Probably accurate but let's face it more of an Administrative action.
2020 Election, sorry we differ. He did things that need to be resolved by the Courts.
Now if he is found innocent or the charges are thrown out, I will be the first to say you were right.
A reasonable jury could go either way on some of the most serious charges.
One mistake in each case could decide the verdict.
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of thinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victo Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now.
Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
Depends on your definition of "better". If you mean, no mean tweets, then you're probably right.Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
Hillary put a whole new meaning to the phrase "assisted suicide" ...Rawhide said:Depends on your definition of "better". If you mean, no mean tweets, then you're probably right.Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
This kind of asshattery would be immediately rejected as nonsense by serious people in normal times. I don’t give a damn what your ‘novel legal theory’ is- it will be far more corrosive to the body politic than whatever threat it is you think you’re ‘protecting’ the country from. https://t.co/qtBESDTHn6
— Peter Meijer (@RepMeijer) August 29, 2023
only smoke so far..Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
nobody believes that.. she would still lose against himWaco1947 said:Hillary still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
The only person Trump can beat in a General Election!4th and Inches said:nobody believes that.. she would still lose against himWaco1947 said:Hillary still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
The question isn't whether Hillary was stupid to destroy evidence or whether she was a "better choice," over Trump. My dog was a better choice. He's better looking and more loyal than both of them.
The question is whether the rule of law requires that she be charged with the crime that evidence, and the director of the FBI, suggested she committed. You can't have it both ways. If discretion was acceptable for Hillary, it could well be acceptable for at least some of the laundry list of charges against Trump.
I have never controlled the House Senate and Presidency.
The evidence against Hillary showed negligence at worst. She wasn't willfully hoarding classified documents, she was sending emails in the course of business (as her predecessor Colin Powell did). Comey was crystal clear that she did not order destruction of any evidence after document requests, and the deleted emails were recovered through other methods anyway.
Garland was fully prepared to apply that same standard to Trump as well, but the evidence is compelling that Trump deliberately concealed evidence and ignored multiple subpoenaes, so we are where we are. Remember, if not for Trump blowing off subpoenaes and telling the world about a compulsory search finally being conducted (after more than a year of stonewalling), we would likely have never even known about the investigation.
Your effort to conflate two very different scenarios is conspicuously partisan.
Garland was fully prepared to apply that same standard to Trump as well, but the evidence is compelling that Trump deliberately concealed evidence and ignored multiple subpoenaes, so we are where we are. Remember, if not for Trump blowing off subpoenaes and telling the world about a compulsory search finally being conducted (after more than a year of stonewalling), we would likely have never even known about the investigation.
Your effort to conflate two very different scenarios is conspicuously partisan.
HuMcK said:
The evidence against Hillary showed negligence at worst. She wasn't willfully hoarding classified documents, she was sending emails in the course of business (as her predecessor Colin Powell did). Comey was crystal clear that she did not order destruction of any evidence after document requests, and the deleted emails were recovered through other methods anyway.
Garland was fully prepared to apply that same standard to Trump as well, but the evidence is compelling that Trump deliberately concealed evidence and ignored multiple subpoenaes, so we are where we are. Remember, if not for Trump blowing off subpoenaes and telling the world about a compulsory search finally being conducted (after more than a year of stonewalling), we would likely have never even known about the investigation.
Your effort to conflate two very different scenarios is conspicuously partisan.
You opinion that Trump's alleged crimes are more egregious than Hillary's alleged crimes is noted, but irrelevant.
If a prosecutor had wished to do so, she could have been charged over her handling of classified documents. Would she have been convicted? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the jury and how good the lawyers are. The point is, the nation did not crumble because she wasn't charged and the nation would not have crumbled if prosecutors decided that Trump's case wasn't worthy of their time. (And if their cases should fall apart, which they could, and Biden's situation continues to get worse, we could be faced with the debacle of another round of Trump in the White House).
This does not change the fact that it is highly hypocritical to argue that Trump must be prosecuted specifically because no one is above the law while not making the same case for Hillary's crimes as described by the FBI director.
It could, but the equities appear vastly different in the Trump cases (except for NY). That's very hard to get around.D. C. Bear said:The question is whether the rule of law requires that she be charged with the crime that evidence, and the director of the FBI, suggested she committed. You can't have it both ways. If discretion was acceptable for Hillary, it could well be acceptable for at least some of the laundry list of charges against Trump.Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
It's a terrible situation, no matter the result.
The leader of Trump's crack legal team
Default judgement
Giuliani Is Liable for Defaming Georgia Election Workers, Judge Says
The ruling means that a defamation case against Rudolph W. Giuliani, stemming from his role in seeking to overturn the 2020 election, can proceed to a trial where damages will be considered.
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Rudolph W. Giuliani was liable for defaming two Georgia election workers by repeatedly declaring that they had mishandled ballots while counting votes in Atlanta during the 2020 election.
The ruling by the judge, Beryl A. Howell in Federal District Court in Washington, means that the defamation case against Mr. Giuliani, a central figure in former President Donald J. Trump's efforts to remain in power after his election loss, can proceed to trial on the narrow question of how much, if any, damages he will have to pay the plaintiffs in the case.
Judge Howell's decision came a little more than a month after Mr. Giuliani conceded in two stipulations in the case that he had made false statements when he accused the election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, of manipulating ballots while working at the State Farm Arena for the Fulton County Board of Elections.
Mr. Giuliani's legal team has sought to clarify that he was not admitting to wrongdoing, and that his stipulations were solely meant to short circuit the costly process of producing documents and other records to Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss so that he could move toward dismissing the allegations outright.
Default judgement
Giuliani Is Liable for Defaming Georgia Election Workers, Judge Says
The ruling means that a defamation case against Rudolph W. Giuliani, stemming from his role in seeking to overturn the 2020 election, can proceed to a trial where damages will be considered.
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Rudolph W. Giuliani was liable for defaming two Georgia election workers by repeatedly declaring that they had mishandled ballots while counting votes in Atlanta during the 2020 election.
The ruling by the judge, Beryl A. Howell in Federal District Court in Washington, means that the defamation case against Mr. Giuliani, a central figure in former President Donald J. Trump's efforts to remain in power after his election loss, can proceed to trial on the narrow question of how much, if any, damages he will have to pay the plaintiffs in the case.
Judge Howell's decision came a little more than a month after Mr. Giuliani conceded in two stipulations in the case that he had made false statements when he accused the election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, of manipulating ballots while working at the State Farm Arena for the Fulton County Board of Elections.
Mr. Giuliani's legal team has sought to clarify that he was not admitting to wrongdoing, and that his stipulations were solely meant to short circuit the costly process of producing documents and other records to Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss so that he could move toward dismissing the allegations outright.
Pretty sure ruling that a trial may proceed, is not the same as a 'default judgment' in said case.
Trump did not have DOJ prosecute.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
The question isn't whether Hillary was stupid to destroy evidence or whether she was a "better choice," over Trump. My dog was a better choice. He's better looking and more loyal than both of them.
The question is whether the rule of law requires that she be charged with the crime that evidence, and the director of the FBI, suggested she committed. You can't have it both ways. If discretion was acceptable for Hillary, it could well be acceptable for at least some of the laundry list of charges against Trump.
You are right, Trump let her walk.Waco1947 said:Trump did not have DOJ prosecute.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
The question isn't whether Hillary was stupid to destroy evidence or whether she was a "better choice," over Trump. My dog was a better choice. He's better looking and more loyal than both of them.
The question is whether the rule of law requires that she be charged with the crime that evidence, and the director of the FBI, suggested she committed. You can't have it both ways. If discretion was acceptable for Hillary, it could well be acceptable for at least some of the laundry list of charges against Trump.
Waco1947 said:Trump did not have DOJ prosecute.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Hillary was stupid to destroy them but she still was the better choice over chaos Trump.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Falsehood -- "I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law"
The rule of las is at stake. One does not get to plead "it's political" because that mean politicians should not be prosecuted for their crimes. That's silliness. I believe no one is above the law not even politicians.
You seem to have a very concrete way of t"hinking, kind of like Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's famous novel. I'm not sure what the "rule of las" is, a 7th grade response " It's the rule of law
but there is a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of prosecutorial discretion that doesn't abrogate the rule of law. For example, Hillary Clinton hasn't faced charges even though her actions, according to the FBI director, constituted, to quote the man himself, "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." This doesn't mean the republic has ended and declining to prosecute Trump in many of these instances we see today would, similarly, not represent the end of the republic. Hugely short sighted. He tried to steal the election . He caused an insurrection which I saw with my own eyes.
Did you throw a fit when Hillary wasn't charged because you believe "no one is above the law?" If you didn't, you really don't have a leg to stand on now. Throw a fit? Why didn't you throw a fit with your congressman when you controlled the house and senate and presidency?
The question isn't whether Hillary was stupid to destroy evidence or whether she was a "better choice," over Trump. My dog was a better choice. He's better looking and more loyal than both of them.
The question is whether the rule of law requires that she be charged with the crime that evidence, and the director of the FBI, suggested she committed. You can't have it both ways. If discretion was acceptable for Hillary, it could well be acceptable for at least some of the laundry list of charges against Trump.
Does this help your argument?
Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.
The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.
They've helped him beyond the Republican primary.Osodecentx said:The indictments have helped Trump .. politically .. in Republican primary ... just like Democrats hoped.whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
if you believe what the Democrats are doing is a very dangerous precedent for many reasons, you should be taking no actions which would help them, like throwing your vote away at the top of the ticket.D. C. Bear said:whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
I supposed I would have to be classified as a "never Trumper" since I never voted for him and will not vote for him now, but I am certainly not cheering on his prosecution. I have a bad feeling that a significant motivation for the prosecutions is political rather than anything necessitated by an adherence to the rule of law. It seems to me to be a very dangerous precedent for many reasons.
Laura Ingraham of all people said the other night to Eastman that she's seen no evidence of fraud, and she's repeatedly requested it privately and publicly. Maybe that imminent Trump press conference will finally lay it all out!whiterock said:Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.
The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.
In an unusual ruling issued Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington entered a default judgment against Giuliani in the civil defamation case brought by Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman.Oldbear83 said:
Pretty sure ruling that a trial may proceed, is not the same as a 'default judgment' in said case.
they like to ignore the increased minority vote polling.. seen as much as 20% f the black vote. Those are typically Dem voteswhiterock said:They've helped him beyond the Republican primary.Osodecentx said:The indictments have helped Trump .. politically .. in Republican primary ... just like Democrats hoped.whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Yes, allowed himself. His White House Counsel, DOJ and even his Daughter told him there was no evidence of fraud, yet he latched on to Eastman, Powell and Guiliani pushing ideas that exposed him and the Presidency to risk. That was Trump allowing himself to be put in this position.whiterock said:Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.FLBear5630 said:Cheering? A former President of the United States dragging the office through the mud, charged with planning to overthrow an election with evidence to a level a Grand Jury recommended indicting? No, not cheering. It is tragic and horrible that Trump allowed himself to be put in this situation. He lost the election and should have worked on succession, not pouting, throwing a temper tantrum that led to this. So, I am not cheering at all...whiterock said:There are only two camps who are cheering on the prosecutions of Trump: progressives and neverTrumpers. That's expected. Both live in dream worlds of should & ought rather than what is.FLBear5630 said:You were right, I just tried to cover my taking the fake hook, line and sinker... : )Osodecentx said:It is nutty, but Trump lawyers, led by Giuliani, might actually try.FLBear5630 said:Things are getting so weird, fake and real are becoming indistinguishable.Osodecentx said:It's a fake news site. Senate impeachment trial isn't double jeopardy in criminal trials.FLBear5630 said:DIdn't know Senate hearings were judicial.4th and Inches said:interesting idea..Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump to be deemed unconstitutional, as he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate twice.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 25, 2023
Not even close. Scatterbrained
Pastor arrested for threateing a poll worker in GA for Trump. Real.
Trump saying Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to take whatever he wants. Real.
Trying for Double Jeopardy is out of the realm of possibility?
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned separation of powers. I think that is just one of the real good reasons it wouldn't work.
Jonathan Turley has written articulately about the legal malpractice going on. But more and more people, even confirmed left-of-center types like Brett Weinsteain, are starting to realize the horror of what is unfolding, the patent tyranny of it all.
I was a skeptic the prosecutions would strengthen him to the degree they have. But it is increasingly obvious that the harder they push, the stronger they make him. And it should have been obvious all along - it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if they will do this to Trump, they will do it to anyone who opposes them. As alarmed as I am watching it unfold, I am also reassured at the number of people who would not normally be part of my coalition agree that this kind of tyranny cannot be allowed to stand. The system is broken. It cannot be repaired until liberals recognize they have more in common with conservatives - a shared belief in classical liberalism - than they do with progressives, who see classical liberalism as a tool of oppression to be exterminated.
neverTrumpers are cheering on a feeding crocodile oblivious to the reality that it will soon turn to feed on them.
He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.
The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.
Trump and his surrogates recruiting alternate electors and asking Pence to reject the ones the State's sent, was Trump allowing himself to be in this position.
There are ways of challenging without doing a blood and guts speech on Jan 6th and telling the crowd to go to Congress. That was Trump allowing himself to be at risk.
These are not made-up media Democratic lies, they are documentable (many times on TV, recorded or on Twitter) Trump actions that allowed himself and the Executive Branch to be at risk. How long did he wait to make a statement to stand down and go home?? He sat there and smiled, according to his Staff. Congress is being overrun and the President won't tell them to stop. Yeah, that's your guy.
So, either you think that blowing up the US system of elections is worth it or not. Because that is exactly what Trump tried to do, which again is documented by his own Staff and VP. None of this is drinking the media cool-aid, it is documented and many of us watched with our own eyes.
Or maybe there was no evidence and "lock her up" was just showy stagecraft.
They will never accept the premise that Trump's actions are objectively worse than anything his opponents have done. They lie to themselves and cope by dismissing truthful allegations as "hoaxes", or just political prosecutions, so they can absolve themselves for supporting a monster.