Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

[Rawley]

If the general counsel saw something one way but the commission didn’t follow suit, then the commission didn’t credit the advice of “counsel.”

Do morons like you ever wonder why it’s called the “opinion” of counsel?

Do you grasp that it’s not binding?

Nah. You’re just a dumbass.

The fact that scumbag Merchan wouldn't allow Trump's FEC witness to testify about Federal campaign finance law says it all

 

[Marener]

If the general counsel saw something one way but the commission didn’t follow suit, then the commission didn’t credit the advice of “counsel.”

Do morons like you ever wonder why it’s called the “opinion” of counsel?

Do you grasp that it’s not binding?

Nah. You’re just a dumbass.

The Republicans that Trump appointed, the very same people that voted against the counsel recommendations, stated their reason for doing so.

Their reasons did not say anything about the counsel getting anything wrong. It merely said they didn’t really care.

Do you know any of this?

Nah. You’re just an ill informed loser.

 

[BackAgain]

The Republicans that Trump appointed, the very same people that voted against the counsel recommendations, stated their reason for doing so.

Their reasons did not say anything about the counsel getting anything wrong. It merely said they didn’t really care.

Do you know any of this?

Nah. You’re just an ill informed loser.

You’re a hack. Always were. Always will be.

Don’t tell shit and then simply forget to substantiate the crap you spew.

You know, it’s not like any reasonable people ever believe your nonsense.

 

[Marener]

You’re a hack. Always were. Always will be.

Don’t tell shit and then simply forget to substantiate the crap you spew.

You know, it’s not like any reasonable people ever believe your nonsense.

You never backed up your allegation that the FEC “felt differently” and you never will because you can’t.

Meanwhile, you can read the statement from a Trump’s Republican appointees.

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf

See where they said it was all legal? No? That’s because they didn’t say any such thing.

 

[BackAgain]

You never backed up your allegation that the FEC “felt differently” and you never will because you can’t.

Show me the FEC sanctions against Trump.

But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because a counsel’s opinion doesn’t mean jack shit. You fraud.

Meanwhile, you can read the statement from a Trump’s Republican appointees.

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf

See where they said it was all legal? No? That’s because they didn’t say any such thing.

Show me where they ever said that it wasn’t legal. You fraud.

 

[Marener]

Show me the FEC sanctions against Trump.

But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because a counsel’s opinion doesn’t mean jack shit. You fraud.

I never said the FEC sanctioned Trump, dipshit. Now you’re resorting to strawmen.

The letter I posted wanted from the counsel, it was from the commissioners. It says what I claimed. They didn’t care about the case and were moving on.

Show me where they ever said that it wasn’t legal. You fraud.

You are the one that brought up the FEC implying that they said it was legal. Where do you substantiate that?

 

[BlindBoo]

She wasn't suppose to have it in the first place.

Having a private email server like Collen Powell used was not illegal in 2009. Nor is having long email chains that were sent to here containing classified information anything like absconding with classified documents like General Petraeus, Sandy Berger or Donald Trump did.

 

[berg80]

The fact that scumbag Merchan wouldn't allow Trump's FEC witness to testify about Federal campaign finance law says it all

Liar.

CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan wouldn’t let the defense call campaign finance expert Bradley A. Smith to testify in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter.

THE FACTS: As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

“The expert witness that we have, the best there is in election law, Brad Smith, he’s considered the Rolls Royce, or we’ll bring it back to an American car, Cadillac, but the best there is,” Trump said on his way out of court on Monday. “He can’t testify. He’s not being allowed to testify.”

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

 

[pknopp]

Having a private email server like Collen Powell used was not illegal in 2009.

Yes it was.

Nor is having long email chains that were sent to here containing classified information anything like absconding with classified document like General Petraeus, Sandy Berger or Donald Trump did.

Prosecute them. I have no idea why you think an argument that "Many in government are corrupt" is a compelling argument.

 

[berg80]

Show me the FEC sanctions against Trump.

No one said there were any. The Repubs on the commission voted against taking action. You can't really be this stupid can you?

 

[Billiejeens]

He couldn’t. To prosecute someone, you need evidence and he never had any. The DoJ wouldn’t stand for meddling from politicians. They still don’t. The prosecutions of Trump have not been influenced by Biden whatsoever.

But we saw in the Trump Ukraine impeachment, that republicans believe it was his duty to go after his political enemies. They already defended this behavior years ago.

It’s worked so far.

You are fucking insane.

 

[struth]

‘I Would Have Every Right To Go After Them’

Surveying the news of the past 24 hours, we’re presented with a particularly sobering reflection of our current state of affairs. I will lay it out brick by brick in the items below, but first I want to circle back to Donald Trump’s appearance two nights ago on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.

Hannity asked a leading question, clearly trying to throw Trump a softball that will let him deny his intention to use the office of the presidency to exact retribution against his political foes – even though Trump has spent many months now promising to do precisely that.

At first, Trump took the easy swing and suggested that he won’t perpetuate what he implies is a cycle of retribution he’s already been victimized by. But then he launched into an extended justification of doing exactly what he had just disclaimed and asserting that he has “every right to go after them”:
Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

This could be one of the better cons he's invented in a while. Setting up a win-win scenario by which should he be re-elected he can claim righteousness and excite the base for going after his proclaimed enemies, or get credit with the minions if he does not. Because if he goes after those who have held him accountable for his many crimes he'll say he's justified. If he doesn't he'll say he is showing great restraint. The Following will love him either way. This guy is a genius in a manipulative, malevolent kind of way.

Same thing with the hush money trial. Win or lose he set up a construct by which he was being unfairly treated by the system. Acquittal.......the charges were made up. Conviction.......the charges were made up. Amazingly, the rubes fell for it AGAIN.

why wouldn't he? Nobody is above the law.

The Demafascist obviously are nervous

 

[struth]

The case against her would have been extremely flimsy and generally unprecedented.

Launching very flimsy cases is not what a normal apolitical prosecutor should be doing.

what was "flimsy" about it? She was literally caught red handed with classified documents on an illegal server system.

 

[berg80]

why wouldn't he?

Lack of evidence.

 

[hadit]

‘I Would Have Every Right To Go After Them’

Surveying the news of the past 24 hours, we’re presented with a particularly sobering reflection of our current state of affairs. I will lay it out brick by brick in the items below, but first I want to circle back to Donald Trump’s appearance two nights ago on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.

Hannity asked a leading question, clearly trying to throw Trump a softball that will let him deny his intention to use the office of the presidency to exact retribution against his political foes – even though Trump has spent many months now promising to do precisely that.

At first, Trump took the easy swing and suggested that he won’t perpetuate what he implies is a cycle of retribution he’s already been victimized by. But then he launched into an extended justification of doing exactly what he had just disclaimed and asserting that he has “every right to go after them”:
Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

This could be one of the better cons he's invented in a while. Setting up a win-win scenario by which should he be re-elected he can claim righteousness and excite the base for going after his proclaimed enemies, or get credit with the minions if he does not. Because if he goes after those who have held him accountable for his many crimes he'll say he's justified. If he doesn't he'll say he is showing great restraint. The Following will love him either way. This guy is a genius in a manipulative, malevolent kind of way.

Same thing with the hush money trial. Win or lose he set up a construct by which he was being unfairly treated by the system. Acquittal.......the charges were made up. Conviction.......the charges were made up. Amazingly, the rubes fell for it AGAIN.

Dude, I'm starting to really think that you'd better not vote for him this time around. Stay home, turn off the TV, stay away from the computer, turn off the lights and hide in your bed. It's safer that way.

 

[struth]

Lack of evidence.

Sure, that would be a reason not to go after some folks....but Biden, Clinton, McCabe, Fanni, seems to be plenty of evidence.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Fascism has been on the rise in Europe since the migrant crisis caused by Shrub's invasion of Iraq and the consequent chaos in the ME that ensued.
It's been on the rise here since the Orange Fraud was carried in to political life on an escalator.

The Narrative.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes it was.




Prosecute them. I have no idea why you think an argument that "Many in government are corrupt" is a compelling argument.

Nope. "President Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department."

Hillary Clinton's email server traced to home-based service: AP

Setup would have given her extra control over her emails as secretary of state; didn't mention the controversy but cheered prospect of woman president during Tuesday speech

www.cbsnews.com

Berger and Petraeus were, and Benedict Donald is under indictment for taking those documents. Also Neither Berger nor Petraeus tried to keep the documents, defied subpoenas or lied to keep them.

 

[berg80]

Sure, that would be a reason not to go after some folks....but Biden, Clinton, McCabe, Fanni, seems to be plenty of evidence.

You realize this is likely a redux of "lock her up," right? The minions get entertained, Trump gets to make unproven allegations, and at the end of the day he does nothing. Why? Because he knows if he tries to prosecute it will blow up in his face.

It's much more effective to keep the lie alive so the rubes go to bed dreaming of the day Hillary goes to jail.

 

[pknopp]

Nope. "President Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department."

Hillary Clinton's email server traced to home-based service: AP

Setup would have given her extra control over her emails as secretary of state; didn't mention the controversy but cheered prospect of woman president during Tuesday speech

www.cbsnews.com

Berger and Petraeus were, and Benedict Donald is under indictment for taking those documents. Also Neither Berger nor Petraeus tried to keep the documents, defied subpoenas or lied to keep them.

And Hillary simply deleted them. Again, I am NOT trying to defend any of them. You are simply trying to either excuse or deflect.