Slam Obamas, and Deep State Investigates you For Criminality, but a Pass for Attacking Trump

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, the distinct differences between how the top appointees in the Federali power structure handles those who insult Trump vrs those who insult Obama are so illustrative of how deeply the Marxists have worked their way into our top levels of government.

Remember that Arkansas rodeo clown that simply put on an Obama mask? He was ruined and lost his job.

Other people have been arrested by the Secret Service for insulting the Obamas in public and investigated for possible threats to the Obamas when no threats were made, simply insults.

Now here is this stupid woman who had been part of the government and is being convicted of improperly handling funds from the government. How much you want to bet she didn't do anything not normally done, but these investigators used broad interpretations of the law to nail her basically because of the insults? How do you prove you have moved from your legal residence? Receipts for renting? Does that outweigh your legal claim of residence in your intended home? to the mind of a bureaucrat intent on ensnaring you? She pleaded guilty, but what charges were dropped as part of the plea?

How many others have been investigated and convicted under similar circumstances? Was this merely coincidentally after she said Michell looked like an ape in heels?

Woman who called Michelle Obama an 'ape' sentenced to jail for defrauding FEMA of $18K

Meanwhile the entire mass media in the USA lies about Trump and ridicules him every day of the week and half the time the goobermint leftovers from Obama's administration are the lead clowns.

 

[Camp]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[Camp]

View attachment 263643

Question. What does the cartoon have to do with the thread topic?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

Valid observation there, Camp.

You feeling well?

Seriously, we all break various laws unknown anyway, is it a stretch to say that targeted investigations are an abuse of power?

I don't like you, so I am going to dig into your affairs, tempt your coworkers to rat on you, and go through your social media and associations till we find something to hang you out to dry with?

That is tyranny, is it not?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

DOn't bother explaining the real facts to a conservative. It only pisses them off even more!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

DOn't bother explaining the real facts to a conservative. It only pisses them off even more!

'Real FACTS'?

roflmao

 

[Camp]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

Valid observation there, Camp.

You feeling well?

Seriously, we all break various laws unknown anyway, is it a stretch to say that targeted investigations are an abuse of power?

I don't like you, so I am going to dig into your affairs, tempt your coworkers to rat on you, and go through your social media and associations till we find something to hang you out to dry with?

That is tyranny, is it not?

There is no evidence that that is what happened in this case. She claimed her house was destroyed and it wasn't. She put in a fraudulent claim and got caught.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

DOn't bother explaining the real facts to a conservative. It only pisses them off even more!

'Real FACTS'?

roflmao

yes....

she was arrested for a crime, NOT for her speech....

THAT is the real fact and if you don't understand that then you are truly a trumpette.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

Valid observation there, Camp.

You feeling well?

Seriously, we all break various laws unknown anyway, is it a stretch to say that targeted investigations are an abuse of power?

I don't like you, so I am going to dig into your affairs, tempt your coworkers to rat on you, and go through your social media and associations till we find something to hang you out to dry with?

That is tyranny, is it not?

There is no evidence that that is what happened in this case. She claimed her house was destroyed and it wasn't. She put in a fraudulent claim and got caught.

No, she did not claim her house was 'destroyed'. She said it was damaged and the repairs caused her to have to move to a rental property in the mean time.

This is why people HATe talking about anything related to politics any more. Ideologues like you immediately cast everything in absolute terms and back it up with hyperbole that borders on outright lying. It is a disgusting and ridiculous claim to stretch 'damaged' to 'destroyed' which have entirely different meanings, but you do it without even noticing.

Why? Because this woman said something that you dislike so now she deserves to be ruined, her career and estate destroyed by Federali fines and prosecution costs.

And that does not trouble you at all, but Clintons violation of National security laws related to the storage of classified documents is not worthy of even serious investigation because she shares many of your political views.

You are a dishonest, amoral, and vile being. You would have sucked Bera's cock had you lived in Soviet Russia, I have no doubt.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ya, she got fired for making a racist slur against a former first lady on Facebook, but that is not what got her convicted in court for thievery of $18,000 of federal funds. Maybe it brought attention to her, but what got her fired was stealing funds from FEMA.

DOn't bother explaining the real facts to a conservative. It only pisses them off even more!

'Real FACTS'?

roflmao

yes....

she was arrested for a crime, NOT for her speech....

THAT is the real fact and if you don't understand that then you are truly a trumpette.....

Lol, I am a trumpette?

N o, you are a retarded ideologues who denies tyranny when it is shown to them because the government agents in this case have a (D) beside their names.

Fuck you and welcome to my ignore list, shit4brains.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Alan Dershowitz: Why is Paul Manafort off to Rikers? Prepare to be shocked (and outraged)

Why then was Manafort moved there? He has already been indicted on multiple state charges for which he cannot, if convicted, be pardoned by President Trump. His state trial is not imminent.

He should be allowed to await that trial in the federal facility to which he was sentenced. He could then be transferred to New York on the eve of his state trial.

The New York authorities appear to acknowledge that he would be unsafe at Rikers, presumably because of his high profile connections to Trump. That is why he will be held in solitary confinement for his own good. But his own good would better be served by leaving him where has already spent time in federal confinement....

New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a decent man, has justified his transfer by invoking the cliché that no one is above the law. But what does that have to do with this decision?

In my experience, defendants serving time in federal prisons for federal crimes who are then indicted for state crimes are not usually transferred to Rikers until the eve of their state trials.

Manafort is being treated differently and more harshly because of his past connections to President Trump and the fear that Trump will exercise his constitutional authority to pardon Manafort.

If that is the reason he is being transferred, it makes no sense. Manafort is already under state indictment. If Trump were to pardon him, he could be immediately arrested and brought to New York, where he would have the right to seek release on bail for the non-violent New York crime of which he is presumed innocent.

It certainly appears as if New York is punishing Manafort for his association with Trump....

Perhaps that is the real reason behind the decision to transfer Manafort: the DA hopes that he might be motivated to provide evidence of state crimes for which Trump could be charged.

The law is unclear as to whether a sitting president can be indicted and /or tried for a state, as distinguished from a federal, crime. So when Vance says that no one is above the law, he may be referring to Trump rather than Manafort.

Whatever the reason for the transfer, it seems like the selective application of the law for partisan purposes. The tactic of squeezing a potential witness by making his imprisonment unbearably harsh is generally reserved for mafioso, terrorists and other violent criminals who may have evidence against their bosses.

It is entirely inappropriate in the political context. It is yet another example of the weaponization of the criminal process for partisan advantage.

All civil libertarians, regardless of party affiliation, should be outraged at this abuse. It sets a dangerous precedent that could be used by overzealous prosecutors against any American.