President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Hint: no one gets hanged anymore so obviously I'm not talking about being hanged. If I'm not talking about being hanged, then I'm not talking about being convicted. You should have been able to figure that out from context, but not if you're a tardy so I'll cut you and ja boy, 57, some slack.
Stringing up, even used figuratively or hyperbolically, does kind of suggest that the person faces punishment after a successful prosecution. I mean it hardly implies that they get off.
Not only ADHD, but you're a tardo, I see.
I said probable cause is enough to bring charges, and there is enough probable cause. It's not my fault that you're too tardy to understand what to string him up means in context when the entire topic was about bringing charges.
I assume you were contemplating a state law prosecution because the DOJ's long standing position is that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted while in office. Needless to say, that policy isn't going to change while Trump is in charge of the exceutive branch. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on this issue.
Whether the prosecutions are at the state or federal level, how do you propose to get around the statute of limitations?
I assume you were contemplating a state law prosecution because the DOJ's long standing position is that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted while in office. Needless to say, that policy isn't going to change while Trump is in charge of the exceutive branch. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on this issue. Whether the prosecutions are at the state or fede
We didn't even get that far. The original question posed by nuthouse was why didn't Merrick Garland bring charges to anyone in the files, especially Trump, so therefore there is nothing incriminating for Trump in the Epstein files because they would have charged Trump during Biden's term to prevent him winning in 2024.
yai, but it's a good time to remind him he'll be embraced with love when he joins the rational side of things and puts down his partisanship
I assume you were contemplating a state law prosecution because the DOJ's long standing position is that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted while in office. Needless to say, that policy isn't going to change while Trump is in charge of the exceutive branch. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on this issue.
In Trump v United States, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the President has 'absolute immunity from criminal prosecution' for acts within his authority and 'presumptive immunity' for all official acts. Of course this doesn't cover crimes unconnected with his duties, but there seems to be a convention that, because the Constitution only mentions impeachment by Congress, that's the only recourse, even though the Constitution does not specifically grant immunity from the courts. The US President has always been 'plus roi que le roi'.
Whether the prosecutions are at the state or federal level, how do you propose to get around the statute of limitations?
Good question.
that is completely compatible with what he just said
That was just how an attorney diplomatically says, "Hey, tardos, they can't bring charges because both federal and state statute of limitations have expired."
I guess we'll wait for Virginia's Law to be passed in Congress. Joking of course... they will vote to protect the pedos and quash the bill.
He was thrown off by Rococo saying the Supreme Court has never weighed in on this issue. Another case of where someone opens their post talking about one thing, mentions something else, and then closes their post referring to the opening of the post, and 57 misconstrues it as referring to the something else part.
Shoutout Mitch for how much he skated on all of this
All he needed to do was convict on 1/6, and he seemed so close to doing so and getting some milquetoast republican beating biden
Alas, he didn’t, and rallied the troops to save the trump. Got thrown under the bus and retired but nobody seems to pay the slightest bit of attention to him being the single biggest source of all this happening
[image]dXVCyoX.jpeg[/i
...]
Also the right: everyone who doesn’t say Charlie Kirk wasn’t the greatest human ever should be fired and blacklisted from ever holding a job of any kind
Also the right: everyone who doesn't say Charlie Kirk wasn't the greatest human ever should be fired and blacklisted from ever holding a job of any kind
Also Charlie Kirk: attempting regime change is a terrible idea.
Yeah Charlie Kirk was totally smart enough to have a coherent worldview and not just spew Trumpy rural white noise.
Yeah Charlie Kirk was totally smart enough to have a coherent worldview and not just spew Trumpy rural white noise.
cant disagree. if he would have been smart enough to spew pro-Israel bullshit alongside the backwoods bullshit then he would still be alive.
[image]dXVCyoX.jpeg[/i...] Also the right: everyone who doesn't say Charlie Kirk wasn't the greatest human ever should be fired and blacklisted from ever holding a job of any kind
Could you please with us even ONE PERSON who expressed that sentiment? Thanking you in advance.
p.s. and please don't forget to PM me if you change your mind and decide you'd like to join me for coffee. (We're going dutch, though.)
While I'm not saying that Kirk would still be alive, I would like to point out that both Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens claimed that death threats against them dramatically increased when they became more and more anti-Israel.
When Kirk was on Bill Maher's podcast Club Random, Maher reacted with some surprise when Kirk told him that he brought security with him to Maher's private studio.
Yeah Charlie Kirk was totally smart enough to have a coherent worldview and not just spew Trumpy rural white noise.
He was so against attacking Iran
Could you please with us even ONE PERSON who expressed that sentiment? Thanking you in advance.
p.s. and please don't forget to PM me if you change your mind and decide you'd like to join me for coffee. (We're going dutch, though.)
People were fired for saying they weren't upset that Kirk died. Not for being happy or celebrating it, for just not being upset about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i...
Maybe we should listen to JD Vance on this one, too:
When JD Vance guest-hosted an episode of Kirk’s podcast in the week after his death, the vice-president told listeners: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” Vance said. “And, hell, call their employer.."
Let's apply this to Mueller. When you see someone (the president) celebrating his death, let's hold him accountable to his electorate. What do you say?
And as an intelligent honest well educated non rural I'm sure he never would have flip flopped based on what benefited him later!!
