Weisselberg Indicted

[martybegan]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

None of what you said couldn't also apply to a bullshit political prosecution/persecution.

You argue process, not content.

If it were all bullshit, there wouldn’t be probable cause and a subpoena wouldn’t be issued by the grand jury.

You’re pathetic.

Yep, because there is no such thing as political based prosecutions.

How naïve, stupid, or both.

 

[colfax_m]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

That is not the same argument.

That was a Congressional subpoena on executive branch material part of his official duties.

Trump fought a criminal subpoena on a private matter.

The difference is night and day.

It's very much the same argument.

It wasn't on material, but a person to come testify...Obama was wrong...but he made the argument.

Well Trump's case was two cases, he was right about the House's request, at least the Court agreed...and the Court disagreed on the Vance matter, he turned the documents over...but made similar arguments, as outlined in his brief, loaded with case law to support their argument which I provided.

Look, I get you are using adjectives given to you by leftist propagandist, and were unaware that the arguments aren't new, unique to Trump or anything that other Presidents, including your Dear Leader Obama have used.....it's just silly....that you continue to hold on to them even when confronted with the facts.

With that said, it's no different then you holding on to your silly belief that, any day now he'll be indicted.

It’s absolutely not the same argument. Obama argument was discussing separation of powers and executive privilege.

Trump was arguing that a state can’t investigate him for committing a crime in his personal life. No separation of powers argument. No executive privilege argument.

 

[martybegan]

Dems love to use lawfare to fuck over people they hate.

Hahahahaha!
Really? Why do you think Trump sues so many people? This asshole loves it and always has.

You’re delusional.

yes, a NYC developer involved in lawsuits only happens with Trump......

 

[jc456]

To challenge a subpoena, you make an argument why you shouldn’t have to comply. There are many arguments to be made.

Trump did that. Again, are you saying he had no rights?

 

[colfax_m]

Yep, because there is no such thing as political based prosecutions.

Sure. Whatever. Have it your way Marty. Let’s never prosecute any politicians or their buddies ever again because we wouldn’t want that.

Stop trying to turn out country into a third world shithole.

 

[colfax_m]

Again, are you saying he had no rights?

He did not have the rights he claimed to have in his argument.

Which is why the SCOTUS rejected his claim.

 

[jc456]

He did not have the rights he claimed to have in his argument.

why did the courts agree with him then?

 

[martybegan]

Yep, because there is no such thing as political based prosecutions.

Sure. Whatever. Have it your way Marty. Let’s never prosecute any politicians or their buddies ever again because we wouldn’t want that.

Stop trying to turn out country into a third world shithole.

Says the guy who supports democratic socialists...

 

[Winco]

Says the guy who supports democratic socialists...

Says the guy that supports a lying con man, with a hooker wife.

Soon to be indicted.
Glorious days ahead.

 

[jc456]

Says the guy who supports democratic socialists...

Says the guy that supports a lying con man, with a hooker wife.

Soon to be indicted.
Glorious days ahead.

again, are you suggesting he has no rights? Please, admit your hate for the man. step out let's hear about he has no rights form you.

 

[martybegan]

Says the guy who supports democratic socialists...

Says the guy that supports a lying con man, with a hooker wife.

Soon to be indicted.
Glorious days ahead.

Says the guy who supports an invalid with a deadbeat grafting son....

See how easy that is?

Try harder, cum bucket.

 

[Nostra]

ah more like pushed propaganda. Vance fought all the way to the SCOTUS to get his tax returns...got a crack team of experts to review them, and then didn't get anything to indict him on.

You realize the investigation is ongoing, right?

Vance went all the way to SCOTUS to fight a president who claimed he was above the law. A worthy effort.

Above what law? Be specific.

 

[jc456]

ah more like pushed propaganda. Vance fought all the way to the SCOTUS to get his tax returns...got a crack team of experts to review them, and then didn't get anything to indict him on.

You realize the investigation is ongoing, right?

Vance went all the way to SCOTUS to fight a president who claimed he was above the law. A worthy effort.

Above what law? Be specific.

he's actually saying he doesn't have any rights within the laws.

 

[Nostra]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

Link?

 

[jc456]

Link?

it would have to be his talking points document. He won't post that.

 

[Nostra]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

I did read the briefs....he used the same argument outlined by the Obama admin, and prior admins before him in regards to a State issued sub. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

$1.7 over 15 years, most of which is alleged to be owed to the Feds, the vast majority of it, and the Feds are like...we don't care...this is a non-issue.

He claimed absolute immunity from state criminal investigation. That is not something any other administration has argued.

He thought he was above the law.

You went from he argued in court to “he thought”.

Your constant crawfishing is cute, Clown.

 

[Nostra]

His argument was that WHILE President only the House and Senate have the power to indict, try and convict him.

The fact that he was fighting a subpoena and not an indictment should tell you that your excuse is false.

People fight subpoenas every day. You think Trump shouldn’t have that right, Clown.

 

[Nostra]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

Here ya go, Clown.

GOP senator: Obama ‘believes he is above the law’

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said courts are “acting in the right way” against Obama.

thehill.com

^^^^That is a link.^^^^^

 

[Nostra]

if congress can hold him responsible he is not above the law.

If he can refuse to comply with legal investigations, he’s above the law.

When did he do that?

 

[Nostra]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

That is not the same argument.

That was a Congressional subpoena on executive branch material part of his official duties.

Trump fought a criminal subpoena on a private matter.

The difference is night and day.

People fight those types of subpoenas every day, Clown. Once again you argue Trump doesn’t have the same rights everyone else has.