Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

[Rawley]

Please show us the evidence that Biden has directed or influenced the prosecution of Trump.

SO you can spew more Biden propaganda? OK Sure. Biden's #3 at the DOJ leaves the most prestigious job he has ever had in his entire life to work in a local DA office.

 

[BackAgain]

‘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.

You conflate different concepts very often.

As President, it is true that he could have his DOJ look into possible prosecutions of some probable criminals.

Not because they are his “enemies.” But because he’s the President and law enforcement is part of the job.

 

[Marener]

The "Republican defense" huh? I didn't know "Republicans" were on trial. Interesting world you live in.

You do know that Trump is a Republican, right?

All you can do is resort to frivolous semantic arguments.

 

[Marener]

SO you can spew more Biden propaganda? OK Sure. Biden's #3 at the DOJ leaves the most prestigious job he has ever had in his entire life to work in a local DA office.

Great. What does Biden have to do with that?

 

[Rawley]

You do know that Trump is a Republican, right?

All you can do is resort to frivolous semantic arguments.

LOL Irony award of the day

 

[Marener]

LOL Irony award of the day

What do you mean? I make substantive arguments. I don’t nitpick language to ignore the point.

 

[Rawley]

Great. What does Biden have to do with that?

Oh nothing. Just like he had nothing to do with someone from every single prosecution team having meetings IN THE WHITE HOUSE before they initiated their prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden, nothing to see here, just move along. LOL The volume and absurdity of the shit you Biden fluffers swallow and regurgitate is impressive.

 

[Marener]

Oh nothing. Just like he had nothing to do with someone from every single prosecution team having meetings IN THE WHITE HOUSE before they initiated their prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden, nothing to see here, just move along. LOL The volume and absurdity of the shit you Biden fluffers swallow and regurgitate is impressive.

So I’ll ask again, where is the evidence that Biden has directed or influenced the prosecutions?

 

[Rawley]

What do you mean? I make substantive arguments. I don’t nitpick language to ignore the point.

LOL Sure LOL

 

[Marener]

LOL Sure LOL

You skipped over my entire argument to nitpick my use of the label “Republican” (as if Trump weren’t a Republican).

This is not a sign of a strong argument.

 

[Rawley]

You skipped over my entire argument to nitpick my use of the label “Republican” (as if Trump weren’t a Republican).

This is not a sign of a strong argument.

Dude. Get a grip. No one likes getting their arguments shredded, but man up. When you claimed "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."

When asked what "republicans" you were talking about, you started whining that I was nitpicking and that you were talking about Trump. Obviously you were not talking about Trump.

 

[Redheaded Stranger]

This proposition is presented as if it's a problem. lol

 

[berg80]

You conflate different concepts very often.

As President, it is true that he could have his DOJ look into possible prosecutions of some probable criminals.

Not because they are his “enemies.” But because he’s the President and law enforcement is part of the job.

Law enforcement is what he has spent months and millions of dollars trying to avoid.

I have no problem with the DoJ prosecuting actual crimes. Which is why I think Trump will save himself the utter embarrassment of trying to violate the constitutional protections of the people he wants to go after. He knows no crimes were committed by them regarding his prosecution.

 

[Marener]

Dude. Get a grip. No one likes getting their arguments shredded, but man up. When you claimed "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."

When asked what "republicans" you were talking about, you started whining that I was nitpicking and that you were talking about Trump. Obviously you were not talking about Trump.

It was an argument made broadly by Republicans, from Trump to Congress members to media personalities.

You aren’t shredding anything by claiming to not know what was said.

 

[BackAgain]

Law enforcement is what he has spent months and millions of dollars trying to avoid.

More. He has tried to avoid the political persecutions which come under the guise of law enforcement.

Two very different things.

I have no problem with the DoJ prosecuting actual crimes.

That’s big of you.

Which is why I think Trump will save himself the utter embarrassment of trying to violate the constitutional protections of the people he wants to go after.

Ok. If he has actual criminality in mind and under the scope, I am sure that he has every incentive to go after it and those suspected of it.

He knows no crimes were committed by them regarding his prosecution.

No. He doesn’t. Neither do you.

 

[berg80]

Dude. Get a grip. No one likes getting their arguments shredded, but man up. When you claimed "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."

When asked what "republicans" you were talking about, you started whining that I was nitpicking and that you were talking about Trump. Obviously you were not talking about Trump.

How would you explain the Repub senator's rationale for not voting to convict on charges there was a mountain of evidence for? After all, Don used his position to extort Zelensky in to helping him with his campaign against Biden. One could say his political enemy.

 

[berg80]

He has tried to avoid the political persecutions which come under the guise of law enforcement.

There weren't any. Do you have evidence to prove the grand jury votes were inspired by politics and not the evidence?

 

[BackAgain]

There weren't any. Do you have evidence to prove the grand jury votes were inspired by politics and not the evidence?

Of course.

Exhibit A is the nonsensical indictment brought by persecutor Bragg.

Ya know, bug, your ongoing denial of facts and reality doesn’t make them go away.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

‘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.

Then.....

Doesn't Joe Biden also have that right?

Looks like the cultists can stop crybabying, now.

Haha, I love it when they faithfully regurgitate the mangod's talking point for months, and then he pulls the rug right out from under them by saying something too stupid even for them to imagine.

Will these fools ever learn?

 

[berg80]

He has tried to avoid the political persecutions which come under the guise of law enforcement.

There is a reason you folks don't like to refer to the indictments as having come from multiple grand juries. There's a reason you like using deceptive language like the Dem's persecution.

The charges would have gone nowhere if the grand juries didn't find the evidence compelling enough to indict. I know you hate being reminded of that but them's the facts.