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

[JoeB131]

Lying to Congress is a crime.

And you are welcome to try to prove that in a court of law.

So why didn't Durham charge him?

Oh, that's right, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A CASE!

 

[g5000]

Trump is whooping Briben's ass in the polls

 

[1miseryindex]

someone needs to whup his wimpy ass

 

[Care4all]

The decision was so concise by all three jurists, and thorough, and heavy with precedence, that the Supreme court may not even take the case, and the 9th circuit is the final decision. There has to be grounds in the 9th circuit decision that they wrote, that the SC could disagree with on constitutional grounds....pretty hard to find in this well written decision.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Judge Pan ripped this to shreds by pointing out that he could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his rival and if Congress didn't impeach him he was home free.

On the morning of Jan 20, 2021 Trump could have the President Elect and every successor to the White House poisoned, fall out a 12 story window Putin style or assassinated until a Republican is the next in line to take over. And that chaos agent keeps Trump on as defacto President until Jesus returns and nothing matters anymore.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nope, SCOTUS knows that making the President utterly immune to law would be a terrible precedent, which is why they won't go that far. If they were mere partisan hacks, you might have a point.

I’m not arguing for utter immunity. Trump is not above the law. But, he’s not beneath it either.

Successfully remove him after impeachment which would have to be bipartisan. Then he’s fair game.

If losing an election to the opposing party means being prosecuted, why would that not apply to both sides?

The Big Guy likely is using his family members as bagmen for foreign bribes. But wouldn’t support a highly partisan prosecutor appointed by Trump 47 going after him without a removal.

Or he just didn't want to spend another 10 million dollars proving Paula Jones was full of shit.

“Believe the women!” Unless they are harassed by a Democrat.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I used Dem election math.

Now you are a tRumptard using MAGAGATARD math. You can't help yourself!
MAGA

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

That's the whole huge elephant in the room isn't it? If the current government is successful in weaponizing the government and courts to take down, persecute, destroy political opponents, including past presidents/those running for president, we'll never have another election without candidates being subjected to that. And what good candidates will want to run when they'll be accused of everything from sex crimes to malfeasance or whatever crimes, be subject to indictments/accusations etc. and being tied up in court ad nauseum.

Donald Trump has not been accused of ANYTHING that others have not been accused of. The difference is that the government is for the first time weaponized to take him out. And that is unAmerican, wrong, dangerous, unconstitutional, and should not be allowed to stand.

 

[john doe 101]

I’m not arguing for utter immunity. Trump is not above the law. But, he’s not beneath it either.

Successfully remove him after impeachment which would have to be bipartisan. Then he’s fair game.

If losing an election to the opposing party means being prosecuted, why would that not apply to both sides?

The Big Guy likely is using his family members as bagmen for foreign bribes. But wouldn’t support a highly partisan prosecutor appointed by Trump 47 going after him without a removal.

“Believe the women!” Unless they are harassed by a Democrat.

YOu actually need evidence to prosecute. Courts work differently than message boards.

 

[john doe 101]

That's the whole huge elephant in the room isn't it? If the current government is successful in weaponizing the government and courts to take down, persecute, destroy political opponents, including past presidents/those running for president, we'll never have another election without candidates being subjected to that. And what good candidates will want to run when they'll be accused of everything from sex crimes to malfeasance or whatever crimes, be subject to indictments/accusations etc. and being tied up in court ad nauseum.

Or could it possibly be that trump is a criminal who deserves all of this.

 

[Aldo Raine]

We will destroy the Dem party and piss on its grave.

You will piss down your leg? Yup I have no doubt!
MAGA

 

[Lakhota]

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?

Will SCOTUS accept or reject the case? Many legal experts say they think SCOTUS may reject the case.

TEES UP EXPLOSIVE SCOTUS SHOWDOWN

 

[Foxfyre]

Or could it possibly be that trump is a criminal who deserves all of this.

No. He is not a criminal that deserves all of this. He is a danger to the Democrats' goal of achieving effectively a totalitarian government and being immune from being exposed in their own crimes. No thinking American, no honorable American, should be comfortable with weaponing the government and courts to take down a political opponent no matter how much that opponent is feared/hated

Only the scummiest of Americans could approve of that happening.

Let the process work and let an honest ballot box decide.

 

[Winston]

someone needs to whup his wimpy ass

If you are talking about Trump, you are exactly right. Best post in this thread. Hell, that is his biggest damn problem. Obviously, the man has never had an ass-kickin, nobody has even attempted it. I mean best thing that could ever happen to him, and this country, would be that when he is out on the golf course, kicking his ball and cheating like hell, some damn redneck big ass mofo beats the living shit out of him for it. Or when he grabs the "pussy" of some woman because he thinks he can, and the boyfriend sees it and beats the living shit out of him.

Honestly, Biden wants to win the election. First presidential debate, if we even have one, he strolls across the stage and instead of shaking Trump's hand he delivers a right cross right upside his damn jaw. Then stands over him and dares him to get up. God knows Trump would be whimpering like a damn baby.

Today, like everyday, I have three hundred dollar bills discreetly folded up and hid in my wallet. They have one purpose. And regrettably, it used to be much less money but I keep up with the times. But since I was knee high to a grasshopper Dad always told me, keep court costs in your wallet because you never know when someone needs an ass-whuppin. God forbid I ever come across Trump.

 

[Curried Goats]

I’m not arguing for utter immunity. Trump is not above the law. But, he’s not beneath it either.

Successfully remove him after impeachment which would have to be bipartisan. Then he’s fair game.

If losing an election to the opposing party means being prosecuted, why would that not apply to both sides?

The Big Guy likely is using his family members as bagmen for foreign bribes. But wouldn’t support a highly partisan prosecutor appointed by Trump 47 going after him without a removal.

“Believe the women!” Unless they are harassed by a Democrat.

In what fantasy reading of the Constitution is a political act (impeachment) necessary before criminal justice can be pursued after the person has already left office?

 

[JoeB131]

I’m not arguing for utter immunity. Trump is not above the law. But, he’s not beneath it either.

Successfully remove him after impeachment which would have to be bipartisan. Then he’s fair game.

We've already established that impeachment is a non-starter if parties go to the mattresses for their president. The GOP argument against impeachment was Trump was out of office, so they didn't NEED to impeach him.

If losing an election to the opposing party means being prosecuted, why would that not apply to both sides?

If there are actual crimes committed, absolutely.

The Big Guy likely is using his family members as bagmen for foreign bribes. But wouldn’t support a highly partisan prosecutor appointed by Trump 47 going after him without a removal.

Likely? Where's your evidence? We have 20 years of Joe's income tax returns (unlike Trump) and don't see any entry for "Bribes".

You can't even prove that Hunter committed a real crime, other than income tax evasion, which he's already accepted responsibility for.

“Believe the women!” Unless they are harassed by a Democrat.

I never said that. I take each case and look at the evidence. I also didn't believe Anita Hill, because her story wasn't credible. (Thomas shouldn't be on the court because he's corrupt and dumb as a stump, but not for harassing Hill.)

 

[JoeB131]

That's the whole huge elephant in the room isn't it? If the current government is successful in weaponizing the government and courts to take down, persecute, destroy political opponents, including past presidents/those running for president, we'll never have another election without candidates being subjected to that. And what good candidates will want to run when they'll be accused of everything from sex crimes to malfeasance or whatever crimes, be subject to indictments/accusations etc. and being tied up in court ad nauseum.

Or you could just not nominate objectively horrible human beings like Donald Trump. That would work, too.

The real question is, how did you guys get so invested in someone like this, to the point you are willing to scrap the rule of law to protect him from the consequences of his actions?

Richard Nixon was TEN TIMES the man Trump is, but at the end of the day, his own party told him he was done.

Donald Trump has not been accused of ANYTHING that others have not been accused of. The difference is that the government is for the first time weaponized to take him out. And that is unAmerican, wrong, dangerous, unconstitutional, and should not be allowed to stand.

I'm sorry, when was anyone else accused of fomenting a riot and trying to overthrow the government? Admittedly, I'm only limited to my own life, but I don't recall Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, Carter, or Ford doing anything like this. All of them accepted that their party lost the election and respected the transfer of power. They were even good sports and showed up at the inauguration.

This is VERY American. It tells the world that even the President isn't above the law. ,

 

[Seymour Flops]

YOu actually need evidence to prosecute. Courts work differently than message boards.

Actually, if you’re a highly partisan DA, it’s not hard to get a grand jury to indict.

You need evidence to convict, but then you have to let the defense question your evidence and present its own, so it isn’t as easy.

 

[john doe 101]

No. He is not a criminal that deserves all of this. He is a danger to the Democrats' goal of achieving effectively a totalitarian government and being immune from being exposed in their own crimes. No thinking American, no honorable American, should be comfortable with weaponing the government and courts to take down a political opponent no matter how much that opponent is feared/hated

Only the scummiest of Americans could approve of that happening.

Let the process work and let an honest ballot box decide.

Your opinion has no legal standing in the United States.
We are letting the process work. It just isnt going how you want it to so you have to come up with all this other bullshit.
So now we decide guilt or innocence of crimes by ballot in America? I dont think so pal. You are calling for the abolishment of courts of law. Which is about as anti-American as you can get.
Lets face reality here. You are on the wrong side of history and are unable to accept that. You need to look in the mirror. YOU are the scum, not those that believe in the rule of law, which seemingly you dont believe in.

 

[Seymour Flops]

We've already established that impeachment is a non-starter if parties go to the mattresses for their president. The GOP argument against impeachment was Trump was out of office, so they didn't NEED to impeach him.



If there are actual crimes committed, absolutely.



Likely? Where's your evidence? We have 20 years of Joe's income tax returns (unlike Trump) and don't see any entry for "Bribes".

You can't even prove that Hunter committed a real crime, other than income tax evasion, which he's already accepted responsibility for.

Hunter lied on a firearms background form. That’s a crime.

I never said that. I take each case and look at the evidence. I also didn't believe Anita Hill, because her story wasn't credible. (Thomas shouldn't be on the court because he's corrupt and dumb as a stump, but not for harassing Hill.)

You didn’t believe Monica until she produced the blue dress.