Breaking! Congress To Step In And Give Immunities to Immunize President Trump From Jack Smith ( 18 U.S. Code § 6002 – 3)

[22lcidw]

It is not that elections were stolen as much as the variance in political decisions that has gotten our views of living ways wider and wider.

 

[SavannahMann]

Oh please. Do so. That would be the funniest thing ever. Because Trump would have to answer questions. And the Democrats would be able to ask some. And when Trump lied, the DOJ would be able to prosecute him for Perjury.

The worst part for Americans would be the Trump Fanboys running around explaining that Trumps actions were fine. Normal legal. Even his own statements were lies from the left.

 

[bripat9643]

Didnt Hillary say over and over that 2016 was stolen.

She is knowingly lying.

Shouldn't she be indicted for that?

 

[postman]

Oh please. Do so. That would be the funniest thing ever. Because Trump would have to answer questions. And the Democrats would be able to ask some. And when Trump lied, the DOJ would be able to prosecute him for Perjury.

The worst part for Americans would be the Trump Fanboys running around explaining that Trumps actions were fine. Normal legal. Even his own statements were lies from the left.

See my previous post, where 18 USC 6002 only grants use immunity, not transactional immunity. And you're right about the democrats having a field day questioning Trump. They could effectively read the Jack Smith indictment, and ask Trump "Is this true?", or "Did you actually believe this?"

Of course nothing Trump said, could be used against him in court. But it would be damning in the court of public opinion.

 

[postman]

Shouldn't she be indicted for that?

Only if Mexico pays for it.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Shouldn't she be indicted for that?

Why?

None of Trump's indictments is for making that claim.

Are you not familiar with the first amendment? Derp.

 

[bripat9643]

Why?

None of Trump's indictments is for making that claim.

Are you not familiar with the first amendment? Derp.

Yes they are, dumbass. Jack Smith says Trump isn't protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Yes they are, dumbass. Jack Smith says Trump isn't protected by the First Amendment.

That is the opposite of what he said.

I think you could find the indictments on tape if reading isn't your thing.

 

[bripat9643]

That is the opposite of what he said.

I think you could find the indictments on tape if reading isn't your thing.

That's what the latest indictment is for, jackass

 

[postman]

Yes they are, dumbass. Jack Smith says Trump isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Jack Smith never said anything of the kind.

And the indictments are for what Trump did, not what he said.

 

[hadit]

This whole Q thing has been a perfect example, and now it dominates their thought processes.

Q has been wrong so many times, yet they'll justify it, every time, as some kind of calculated diversion.

I went a long time before I was willing to call this a cult, but....

This is what happens when you argue headlines. We saw the same phenomenon in a number of trials over the last few years where the initial headlines were hysterical assumptions by the blamemainstreet media that bore little resemblance to reality. The cult didn't care and just regurgitated them ad nauseum, convinced they were factual. The Rittenhouse trial springs to mind. Remember how the panting classes were insisting that he was out hunting black people (even though he only shot white people), and that he took the gun across state lines for the sole purpose of, again, hunting black people (he didn't)? The same with "hand up, don't shoot" that never happened. By the time any trial gets started, both pro and anti-TRUMP! forces will have their positions firmly staked out and will be arguing headlines and what the talking heads SAY happened instead of actual testimony.

 

[Catsnmeters]

That's what the latest indictment is for, jackass

No it's not.

You watch Fox news don't you? Lol.

 

[bripat9643]

Jack Smith never said anything of the kind.

And the indictments are for what Trump did, not what he said.

That's what his indictment says, dumbass. Trump can't claim the election was fraudulent. That's a crime, according to Smith.

 

[postman]

The indictment covers what Trump did, outside of public view. The public knew nothing about what Trump told his co-conspirators, so it's not a 1st amendment issue.

Telling a crowd, somebody should put a bullet into Mike Pences head is 1st amendment.

Telling an armed gunman in the room with Pence to put a bullet into Mike Pences head is murder.

 

[postman]

That's what his indictment says, dumbass. Trump can't claim the election was fraudulent. That's a crime, according to Smith.

That's the portion in order to prove criminal intent (mens rea)

 

[bripat9643]

The indictment covers what Trump did, outside of public view. The public knew nothing about what Trump told his co-conspirators, so it's not a 1st amendment issue.

Telling a crowd, somebody should put a bullet into Mike Pences head is 1st amendment.

Telling an armed gunman in the room with Pence to put a bullet into Mike Pences head is murder.

All Trump did is express his opinion that the election was fraudulent. That's not a crime when anyone else does it, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the portion in order to prove criminal intent (mens rea)

Where's the criminal intent?

 

[postman]

All Trump did is express his opinion that the election was fraudulent. That's not a crime when anyone else does it, dumbass.

It wasn't what Trump said publicly. Don't confuse the issue.

It's about what Trump told privately to his co-conspirators.

 

[Mac1958]

This is what happens when you argue headlines. We saw the same phenomenon in a number of trials over the last few years where the initial headlines were hysterical assumptions by the blamemainstreet media that bore little resemblance to reality. The cult didn't care and just regurgitated them ad nauseum, convinced they were factual. The Rittenhouse trial springs to mind. Remember how the panting classes were insisting that he was out hunting black people (even though he only shot white people), and that he took the gun across state lines for the sole purpose of, again, hunting black people (he didn't)? The same with "hand up, don't shoot" that never happened. By the time any trial gets started, both pro and anti-TRUMP! forces will have their positions firmly staked out and will be arguing headlines and what the talking heads SAY happened instead of actual testimony.

And there's plenty of "media" to feed both ends with all they need.

 

[postman]

Where's the criminal intent?

In what Trump told his co-conspirators.