Crime Donald Trump Hush Money Fraud Trial

lilelvis said:
There is a ton to consider and I think the framers did a pretty good job.
Click to expand...
Which is why the founders clearly enumerated what immunity the president has. Of course he should have other topics he receives immunity for at sone level beyond what is mentioned in the Constitution, I just think it's comical that all of a sudden the "originalists" on the Supreme Court want to start getting down to "interpretation" of "unsaid" things in the constitution as it pertains to any possible way to delay the obvious final conclusion that of course a president can't be immune to prosecution regardless of impeachment, as one justice said, blanket immunity would lead to a presidential crime factory...when earlier this same court said essentially that "abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution so it's not a right"...

Impeachment is a political move, not a judicial branch move. Predicating judicial proceedings on prior Impeachment is just ridiculous.
 
44nutman said:
This crime like when he was convicted of money laundering and stealing from his charity, happened before he became President.
So if I am President, I get a lifetime exemption on any crimes committed prior to being President.
George Washington did not power double King George just so this great country can have kings again.
Click to expand...
Good thing I didn’t say or suggest any of that.
 
The XL said:
Where is it said that a President can break laws or violate the Constitution in so called "service of country?" And how is it in the best interest of the country for the President to wage an illegal war or kill a US citizen without due process?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ol US citizen that left the United States, and joined a terrorist organization. Black man bad, so we must defend brown terrorist man.

And I'm sure you were just as upset when his 8-year-old daughter was killed in 2017 during a raid authorized by Trump. Right?
 
andnowweknow said:
Which is why the founders clearly enumerated what immunity the president has. Of course he should have other topics he receives immunity for at sone level beyond what is mentioned in the Constitution, I just think it's comical that all of a sudden the "originalists" on the Supreme Court want to start getting down to "interpretation" of "unsaid" things in the constitution as it pertains to any possible way to delay the obvious final conclusion that of course a president can't be immune to prosecution regardless of impeachment, as one justice said, blanket immunity would lead to a presidential crime factory...when earlier this same court said essentially that "abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution so it's not a right"...

Impeachment is a political move, not a judicial branch move. Predicating judicial proceedings on prior Impeachment is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yes, letting the judicial arm of the executive prosecute their own boss is a great idea.
None of them are elected. Congress is elected.
The framers knew what a bureaucracy could become and put duly elected representatives of the people between them at every step.
People that are accountable through the election process.
It’s funny how defensive you’re being. I didn’t say shit about innocence or guilt in these matters.
You are very polarized on this particular topic, although not always. I read.
 
lilelvis said:
Yes, letting the judicial arm of the executive prosecute their own boss is a great idea.
None of them are elected. Congress is elected.
The framers knew what a bureaucracy could become and put duly elected representatives of the people between them at every step.
People that are accountable through the election process.
It’s funny how defensive you’re being. I didn’t say shit about innocence or guilt in these matters.
You are very polarized on this particular topic, although not always. I read.
Click to expand...
The fact that you even mention innocence is hilarious. Because nobody is debating whether there is even a chance that Trump DIDN'T do what he's been accused of.

Trump is being legitimately accused of criminal behavior. This isn't machinations of prosecutors...these are grand jury indictments.

My commentary was specifically aimed at how political operatives on the right are masquerading as Supreme Court justices.
 
andnowweknow said:
The fact that you even mention innocence is hilarious. Because nobody is debating whether there is even a chance that Trump DIDN'T do what he's been accused of.

Trump is being legitimately accused of criminal behavior. This isn't machinations of prosecutors...these are grand jury indictments.

My commentary was specifically aimed at how political operatives on the right are masquerading as Supreme Court justices.
Click to expand...
Whew! Alrighty then.

Sounds like you’re not open to discuss the topic. That’s ok.
 
andnowweknow said:
The fact that you even mention innocence is hilarious. Because nobody is debating whether there is even a chance that Trump DIDN'T do what he's been accused of.

Trump is being legitimately accused of criminal behavior. This isn't machinations of prosecutors...these are grand jury indictments.

My commentary was specifically aimed at how political operatives on the right are masquerading as Supreme Court justices.
Click to expand...
tbf... he is innocent until the jury says otherwise.
 
Hey, @BernieSanders @HitlerPig would like a word.

bernie-gloves-v2.jpg
 
The XL said:
Obama waged an illegal war on Libya, Clinton ordered an illegal attack on Sudan and the Bush administration lied about WMDs and nothing happened to any of them. Whether or not Trump is a criminal is one thing, but that's not why they're going after him
Click to expand...
The USA had barely any presence in Libya and was part of a numerous country coalition that intervened during a civil war. How is that all like what Bush did with the Iraq war ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cid
lilelvis said:
Good thing I didn’t say or suggest any of that.
Click to expand...
So paying your 2 side pieces prior to running for President and setting up shell companies to do so, you also agree, that case does not fall under immunity.
 
44nutman said:
So paying your 2 side pieces prior to running for President and setting up shell companies to do so, you also agree, that case does not fall under immunity.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure.
There is no law against shell companies or hush money payment’s that I know of.
Point me to a statute, please.
 
lilelvis said:
I’m not sure.
There is no law against shell companies or hush money payment’s that I know of.
Point me to a statute, please.
Click to expand...

hush money payments isn't a crime and the farty fraudster is not on trial for that. falsifying business documents in order to hide those payments it is a crime and that's why the mandarin molester is being brought to trial. falsifying business records in the first degree requires an intent to commit or conceal another crime and the primary crime in this case is statute 17-152.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,735
Messages
55,513,908
Members
174,804
Latest member
eltonmjr

Share this page

Back
Top