Let's talk about the oft repeated phrase "a threat to democracy" we believe trump presents.

[berg80]

So, if the Trump DOJ prosecutes Joe Biden based on evidence, that will not be retribution, and a threat to democracy?

Correct. Evidence strong enough to get a grand jury to vote to indict.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Correct. Evidence strong enough to get a grand jury to vote to indict.

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. Nor does Joe if there is no such evidence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So, if the Trump DOJ prosecutes Joe Biden based on evidence, that will not be retribution, and a threat to democracy?

Except in the real world no evidence exists that Joe Biden committed any crimes.

 

[Robert W]

Probably not. The special prosecutor was upheld in US v Nixon, a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court, and something that Cannon was required to comply with as it is binding precedent.

She's way over her skis here.

Nixon was a hell of a long time ago. When that happened I now a Republican only voted for Democrats. Fellow voters, I spent much of my life as a devout Democrat. I broke free. You can also break free for freedom.

Who but Democrats have tried to put a President into prison? But it did not start lately, it started when Obama released his report about Russia and Trump on January 6 of 2017.
Read the charges against Trump when Obama was president.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

[berg80]

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. Nor does Joe if there is no such evidence.

I'm not worried about a grand jury vote. I'm worried about the corruption of the DoJ. Again, something trump has previously done.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Correct. Evidence strong enough to get a grand jury to vote to indict.

and a federal Judge to grant the issuing of subpoenas.

 

[Marener]

She's willing to fall on her sword for Dear Leader. The reversal of her ruling will make strike three.

There's a very real possibility that the case makes it up to SCOTUS where the conservative judges agree with Cannon, basically changing the rules in order to save Trump. This is a reason that stare decisis is so important. We have to operate under the rules that the courts give us, and if the courts can just change the rules at any point in time, then it's just chaos with no one knowing what to do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Read the charges against Trump when Obama was president.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Charges?
LOL
In what court of law?

Your fantasy world is small

 

[Marener]

Nixon was a hell of a long time ago. When that happened I now a Republican only voted for Democrats. Fellow voters, I spent much of my life as a devout Democrat. I broke free. You can also break free for freedom.

Who but Democrats have tried to put a President into prison? But it did not start lately, it started when Obama released his report about Russia and Trump on January 6 of 2017.
Read the charges against Trump when Obama was president.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Lots of court decisions are a hell of a long time ago, but doesn't make them any less relevant. This is the current controlling precedent. The DoJ would have no way of knowing that they were doing anything "wrong" by appointing Jack Smith as they were operating under the legal precedent they were given by the courts.

The reason no former presidents were prosecuted is that up until now former presidents really didn't try to break the law (Nixon exempted whom had to receive a pardon, but most certainly would have been prosecuted without one).

 

[pknopp]

It's against the law to kill people.
Law enforcement killed someone last Saturday - what charges are you looking for?

I can't speak to a generalization.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except in the real world no evidence exists that Joe Biden committed any crimes.

Isn't that for the Grand Jury to decide?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm not worried about a grand jury vote. I'm worried about the corruption of the DoJ. Again, something trump has previously done.

But, what could the DOJ do to an innocent person? The grand jury will stop them from indicting anyone absent sufficient evidence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Isn't that for the Grand Jury to decide?

There needs to be credible evidence of a crime before a grand jury can be called.

you people are grasping at shit again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But, what could the DOJ do to an innocent person? The grand jury will stop them from indicting anyone absent sufficient evidence.

Charging

www.justice.gov

9-27.000 - Principles of Federal Prosecution

www.justice.gov

 

[Billiejeens]

I can't speak to a generalization.

How is that a generalization?

It is a specific act
Seen around the world.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I agree that Dems generally have become complacent about the posed threat. Lots of arm waving, too little action.

Are you a leader? Lead. If not, find one.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp this is what I asked you. You answered with one word: yes.

No, that's not what I answered yes to. Quit being dishonest.

Words have meanings.

 

[pknopp]

I specifically asked you if you meant what you claimed. I clarified, you said yes. All laws are good and should be abided by.

That's not what you asked. Stop lying.

 

[pknopp]

How is that a generalization?

It is a specific act
Seen around the world.

I have no idea what issue you are speaking about.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There needs to be credible evidence of a crime before a grand jury can be called.

you people are grasping at shit again.

Then what are you worried about? The grand jury won't even be called if you are correct about the lack of evidence.

That's why the OP that started this whole thread makes no sense.