DC appeals court says Trump is not immune (as a former president) from prosecution

[Seymour Flops]

Oh, I'm quite OK with acknowledging it was his personal private skepticism of Donald Trump that led to his termination.

Then why did you lie and say:

The appearance of impropriety in their romantic relationship did not accrue to the benefit of the Special Prosecutor's efforts. They were cut due to the embarrassment.

Whatever you do, don't admit that you just blurted something out without thinking it through, and hoped it would slip by.

But then, Strozak seems to think he has a 1st Amendment right to his opinion. And if his opinion cannot be shown to influence the execution of the duties of his profession, well.......

It strongly influenced the perception of whether the FBI was (and is) an apolitical investigative agency. Srzok was not just a low-level plodding agent. He was the Deputy Director of Counter-intelligence, a job he abused to "investigate" a U.S. citizen and presidential candidate, while being urged not to be "loaded for bear," by his side ho when dealing with aother US citizen and presidential candidate.

I hope he has to pay court costs when his silly lawsuit gets tossed out. What he does not realize is that he by suing the FBI, all the anti-Trump bias that the courts have shown will not benefit him, becuase the FBI is even more strongly anti-Trump, and the courts know it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I am fine with this, but Obama must be arrsted for murdering a US citizen with no due process.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t know how many times I can say this…if your actions lead to the death of another person, that is not a civil matter, it is a criminal matter.

Nixon v fitz.. just said a president has immunity from civil damages for any official action taken while in office.

We have immigration LAWS, if Biden fails to uphold those LAWS and refuses to secure the border, and one of those illegals ends up murdering someone, then the argument can be made that Biden, by willfully ignoring our laws, created a reckless endangerment of the citizens of the country that directly led to the murder of one of its citizens.

Except Biden has followed the law, it was Trump who actually broke them. That's why you need a new law, but Republicans in Congress just killed that, so maybe they should sue them.

Same thing with operation fast and furious, where the Obama administration was carrying out an illegal gun running operation, and some of those guns made it into the hands of the cartels which used one of those guns to murder a border patrol agent.

Except no one proved that the tracked gun was one of the ones used. 250,000 guns are trafficked from American gun stores to Mexican criminals EVERY YEAR. whining about 2000 guns that were tracked to identify the bad actors is a little silly.

 

[JoeB131]

It strongly influenced the perception of whether the FBI was (and is) an apolitical investigative agency. Srzok was not just a low-level plodding agent. He was the Deputy Director of Counter-intelligence, a job he abused to "investigate" a U.S. citizen and presidential candidate, while being urged not to be "loaded for bear," by his side ho when dealing with aother US citizen and presidential candidate.

I hope he has to pay court costs when his silly lawsuit gets tossed out. What he does not realize is that he by suing the FBI, all the anti-Trump bias that the courts have shown will not benefit him, becuase the FBI is even more strongly anti-Trump, and the courts know it.

Your Boy Weird Beard Durham spent four years trying to prove the FBI did anything wrong in investigating Trump's treason with Putin. The only thing he was able to prove in all that time was that one guy altered a sentence in a warrant extension that would have been approved anyway. The two cases he brought in front of a jury were laughed out of court.

So, um, probably the best thing the FBI could do is settle, given this will be heard in front of an DC Jury that just wants Trump to go the fuck away.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Alrighty then, now it's time to ARREST JOE BIDEN for STEALING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!
You mother fuckers want to play?
LET'S GET IT ON!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ColonelAngus]

Alrighty then, now it's time to ARREST JOE BIDEN for STEALING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!
You mother fuckers want to play?
LET'S GET IT ON!!!!!!!!!!

Lets do it.

When Trump gets elected, his AG had better arrest Obama for murder.

 

[Chillicothe]

Then why did you lie and say:

Umm, poster Flops, you are trying too hard.
When I posted that Strozk et al, were fired because of the embarrassment to the office it was my sincere belief that that was so. There was no intent to deceive. Thus no "lie".

And, when offered sourcing suggesting it was because Strozk said mean things about a suspected criminal he was investigating and was fired for THAT.....well, I'm OK with being educated differently. Duh!

 

[Chillicothe]

It strongly influenced the perception of whether the FBI was (and is) an apolitical investigative agency.

?????? WTH!

Now you are saying that because Strozak said mean things about a suspected criminal and thus negatively affected the public's perception of the FBI....THAT is the reason he was fired?

I kinda think that is what my own poor avatar suggested originally.

Really, poster Flops you are trying too hard, taking this stuff a little too seriously. Trust me.

 

[Chillicothe]

I hope he has to pay court costs when his silly lawsuit gets tossed out.

Well, whether it is "silly" is likely fairly subjective depending upon the partisan-think of poster Flops.

I think their may be an argument with traction (to be sure, I ain't a lawyer though).....but clearly Strozak thinks there is an argument and he found a lawyer who thinks so too.

The argument being that he has the right to an opinion and the right to express it so long as it is not proven to negatively effect his professional duties.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Except Biden has followed the law, it was Trump who actually broke them. That's why you need a new law, but Republicans in Congress just killed that, so maybe they should sue them.



Except no one proved that the tracked gun was one of the ones used. 250,000 guns are trafficked from American gun stores to Mexican criminals EVERY YEAR. whining about 2000 guns that were tracked to identify the bad actors is a little silly.

Biden has not been following the law. He’s been reluctant to secure the border, up until now, because election year..

The only two guns found at the scene when Terry was shot were identified as coming from the gun walking operation.

And they have a bullet that apparently killed him.

that’s not a good sign. I’ll be honest, with the forensic capability we have, I’m a bit amazed they say they can’t conclusively determine if the bullet was fired from one of those two weapons. That’s almost seems like they don’t want to know.

 

[Marener]

Since the court ruled that criminal actions taken while in office are not under the immunity clause, those families can sue under criminal statutes for recompense for their losses.

So they're asking for civil damages. But wait! You also said:

Nixon v fitz.. just said a president has immunity from civil damages for any official action taken while in office.

 

[Lesh]

I’m just pointing out that the court just ruled that all presidents can be held liable for their actions while president.

This means, if I were the family of Brian Terry, I’d sue Obama and Holder for 500 million each. Since their gun running operation ended up putting the gun in the hand of the person who killed Terry.

If I were the parents of anyone who has been killed by an illegal under Biden, to sue him for tens of million each, since his refusal to secure the border allowed the illegals in to kill their family.

Both cases are examples of negligent homicide, or, their actions..or inactions, had a hand in the death of those people.

That has always been the case. Know why they don’t already do that?

They’d lose

Why do you suppose Nixon was PARDONED?

 

[Lesh]

So they're asking for civil damages. But wait! You also said:

Don’t expect a coherent argument from this poster

He changes by the post

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

However, I should have figured as much. You believe that the dc court made a ruling that can apply to Trump, and anyone else still maintains complete immunity.

Lie. I never said or implied such a thing. This is you having an outburst, as if it is someone else's fault that you made an error and your derail attempt failed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well, whether it is "silly" is likely fairly subjective depending upon the partisan-think of poster Flops.

I think their may be an argument with traction (to be sure, I ain't a lawyer though).....but clearly Strozak thinks there is an argument and he found a lawyer who thinks so too.

The argument being that he has the right to an opinion and the right to express it so long as it is not proven to negatively effect his professional duties.

Dude, he used FBI devices to trade profanity, laced insults about Trump, a subject of investigation, with an FBI lawyer, that he was banging on the side. Meanwhile, that same lawyer was telling him “don’t go loaded for bear“ when investigating and questioning Trump’s election opponent.

There is no “first amendment right” to behave that way on the job. Particularly not a government job.

They are both a couple of over educated morons, and your side should be glad to be rid of them.

rarely talked about is that those two were not the only ones. Those two were the ones whose names were made public. There were several other FBI staffers who were making similar comments about Trump on their FBI devices. They were not fired.

I guess if they had fired everyone in the FBI, who made anti-Trump remarks on FBI time and on FBI devices, they would be left with a skeleton crew. I don’t know what it is about Trump that makes adults act like children.

Anyone who still has confidence in such an incredibly partisan group of people, must have the same partisan feelings themselves.

I guess the difference is that if they uncovered pro Trump FBI agents making those kind of statements about Hillary Clinton, Joe and Hunter Biden, or anyone else that they were investigating, I would be appalled. I would not try to find some Weasley justification for that kind of official misbehavior.

But then, Trump’s opponents don’t have the power that he has to get grown-ups to act like children.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dude, he used FBI devices to trade profanity, laced insults about Trump, a subject of investigation, with an FBI lawyer, that he was banging on the side. Meanwhile, that same lawyer was telling him “don’t go loaded for bear“ when investigating and questioning Trump’s election opponent.

There is no “first amendment right” to behave that way on the job. Particularly not a government job.

They are both a couple of over educated morons, and your side should be glad to be rid of them.

rarely talked about is that those two were not the only ones. Those two were the ones whose names were made public. There were several other FBI staffers who were making similar comments about Trump on their FBI devices. They were not fired.

I guess if they had fired everyone in the FBI, who made anti-Trump remarks on FBI time and on FBI devices, they would be left with a skeleton crew. I don’t know what it is about Trump that makes adults act like children.

Anyone who still has confidence in such an incredibly partisan group of people, must have the same partisan feelings themselves.

I guess the difference is that if they uncovered pro Trump FBI agents making those kind of statements about Hillary Clinton, Joe and Hunter Biden, or anyone else that they were investigating, I would be appalled. I would not try to find some Weasley justification for that kind of official misbehavior.

But then, Trump’s opponents don’t have the power that he has to get grown-ups to act like children.

You seem confused.

You are tasked with supporting your claim that this affected the investigation in an important way.

You haven't even come close. Nor will you. Because that was a lie.

 

[Meathead]

Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case.

www.foxnews.com

Well, this was interesting, esp the part here

site

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the case will have far-reaching consequences, both for Trump and all future presidents.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," he said. "Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!"

Comment

I wonder if a former president can be held accountable for what he /she did when VICE president?

Answer?

Only if he or she is a Republican?

No one cares. He's going to be president in January.

 

[sartre play]

Trump will be president again and we will get revenge on Democrats, in that order. Deal with it.

REVENGE??? For what? Having a different point of view? Not blindly following a ( your) single point of view.

 

[1miseryindex]

I am fine with this, but Obama must be arrsted for murdering a US citizen with no due process.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

yes but he's a dim

they're exempt

You didn't finish your last sentence. No one is above the law except democrats

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

yes but he's a dim

they're exempt

You didn't finish your last sentence. No one is above the law except democrats

Or maybe your cult fantasies are baseless.

Des this ever cross your mind?