@Scruddy this is where I totally lose respect for people. You have an obvious argument you're dodging. It's the 50k lb elephant in the room
Why do Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, and Adam Shiff need preemptive Pardons?
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
i think there's a noticable pattern that anyone who opposes trump is a cheater or law breaker...yet nothing ever seems to happen to hold those people accountable
if you think that's just because trump is too nice a guy and looking out for everyone else's interest... i don't know what to tell you (other than i think that's adorable)
i'd also vehemently disagree that campaigning on the theme that your opponent should be jailed then immediately changing course and not pursuing that accountability in any way is "the better way to go for the country's sake"...i think that's cynical politics at its worst
lol. Considering the number of classified materials he had that he HAD NO LEGAL RIGHT TO, this is laughable on its face. What cases came from the subjects of those documents?
it was also reported that 1) an unusual number intelligence assets were killed or silenced during trumps presidency. We also know for a fact that he revealed an Israeli intelligence source to the Russian ambassador on one occasion; 2) security at mar a lago was not exactly tight; 3) a number of those documents had information regarding nuclear facilities or capabilities of us and allies. So yes, I’d argue his possession of those documents represented a danger to America. Not to mention ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE due to the presidential records act.
Lastly, excessive force, really? Please list the injuries/damages from the search of mar a lago for the remaining documents.
Trump was threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they announced they were investigating Biden.
Joe Biden was acting as a representative of the Obama administration when he and others in European governments waned that AG ousted for corruption. Please stop trying to insinuate that Biden somehow was acting alone.
No,.. they looked into Hillary, identified laws that had been broken, and then chose not to prosecute.
Comey said that.
Sessions chose not to disagree, neither did bill bar.
Maybe because that’s because the case wasn’t as strong as implied? DOJ is not in the habit of pssssong on gimmies.
No,.. It's because we have a history in this country of not prosecuting criminal behavior by powerful individuals,.. Trump would have gotten the same treatment had he chosen to just disappear,.. Instead he did the unimaginable by running for office again, which prompted Dems to bring out the knives,.. Lots of knives.
Nah, your entire argument is so unserious that I'm just done. You live up to your name.
Do you see the noticeable pattern from democrats?
- Dems accuse Trump of Russia gate - Hillary had a role in this, but Trump did not collude with russia
- Dems claim Biden laptop was fake- it was real
- Trump wants Biden investigated in Ukraine - Turns out Hunter was hired on for a job he was totally unqualified for and there was likely influence peddling from the Bidens.
- Biden then pardons Hunter for any and all wrongdoing during the time he was with Burisma doing influence peddling.
- Dems use social media to control the public narrative - Trump creates his own media platform and Musk buys Twitter
Trump has not handled everything well, but damn, the dems threw everything they could at him and he still came out on top. Dems created Russiagate, tried to impeach him twice, tried charging him with almost 100 felonies, tried to fine him a half a billion dollars, he got shot once under Biden's secret service with at least another attempt.
How do you justify continuing to attack someone when the best you have against him is he was convicted of a book keeping error.
Last edited:
Everyone reading this knows exactly what you're doing. Dodging a question that invalidates your position.
I have to give you credit for your ability to o ridiculously oversimplify all of these, and ignore key details that contradict your narrative.
When was Liz Cheney under oath?
Her communications with witnesses weren’t illegal.
Exculpatory evidence? It wasn’t a trial.
What records did she delete? There was a broad accusation leveled at the committee, but nothing particular to her. Even if she did delete things after the conclusion of the committee, that’s hardly illegal.
Anyone who reads the retarded takes you post understands. I agree. I'm sure cigarette man agrees with you, though.
Pretty sure in 2021 you all were telling people that Trump was gone and only Dems still talked about him.
Correct, never anticipated he possibly could run the gauntlet,.. What's you're point?
You don’t seem to understand the law or what congressional committees do. Or the Constitution, for that matter.
You guys love to point to things you dislike or think are wrong and claim they’re illegal. You also tend to think the things you like or think right are legal. That’s not how any of this works.
Liz Cheney spoke with a witness without going through the witness’s lawyer. As an attorney, she should not have done that. The issue is an ethical one with her state bar. It’s not criminal.
I am actually very rational about all this stuff in real life even if it doesn't appear that way on here. But I think Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing and there are a lot of people who only know the left wing propaganda. I find if fascinating how some people on the left will criticize Trump for such small things (book keeping error leading to 34 felonies) but they are unwilling to concede any fault in their own democrats even when they are glaringly obvious.
It shouldn’t have been 34 counts, but calling it a book-keeping error is absurd. It was a calculated effort to hide a payment.
Gaming this case up to felony status, after the statute of limitations as a misdemeanor had lapsed, is what was entirely absurd...
Im pretty sure it is illegal after you have been subpoenaed.
At a minimum, how do you criticize trump for his book keeping "errors" regarding the hush money case but give HIillary a free pass on this?
No one’s been accused of deleting records after the subpoena date. Loudermilk accused them of deleting things before the Republicans took control of the House.
Do you think hush money is illegal? Do you think other politicians have done it? Did they record it correctly on the books? were the prosecuted for it?
This is one of those cases that likely had absolutely zero impact on the election (it might have even been done after the election, I don't remember). I think they could have filed a lawsuit if Trump filed it under a personal expense and they could have a case if he filed it under an election expense. This is the epitome of political prosecution in my mind because they could have filed the lawsuit no matter what Trump did.
My understanding is that it is not illegal to pay hush money. If it were illegal to pay hush money then I would have a different opinion.
Former Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards Charged for Alleged Role in Scheme to Violate Federal Campaign Finance Laws
A federal grand jury today returned a six-count indictment against former U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards for allegedly participating in a scheme to violate federal campaign finance laws.
Former Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards Charged for Alleged Role in Scheme to Violate Federal Campaign Finance Laws
A federal grand jury today returned a six-count indictment against former U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards for allegedly participating in a scheme to violate federal campaign finance laws.www.justice.gov
This was a campaign finance violation... not an NDA
Russiagate - far more than accusations of direct Trump collusion; we know 1) his son, son in law and campaign chairman met with Russians who had close ties to Putin at Trump tower. 2) manafort provided Russia with the campaigns internal polling data. 3) several US intelligence agencies, and a bipartisan senate intelligence committee concluded Russia meddled in the ‘16 election.
Hunter/ukraine - Trump pressured Ukraine to announce they were investigating Hunter in exchange for the promised (and congressional ly approved aid package). Yes, Hunter shouldn’t have gotten that job. Yes burisma was likely trying to score points with Biden/US. There’s no evidence of influence peddling from Joe - especially since he was pressuring, along with most of Western Europe to have the corrupt AG ousted because he Wasn’t investigating corruption cases.
Biden laptop - I’ll give you this one to an extent. I’ll add the caveat that at the time even most republicans thought the story, initially reported by a tabloid paper sounded fishy. Seriously - the drug addicted son of a presidential candidate takes his laptop to some random computer repair shop, never comes to pick it up, owner said shop - who happens to be a republican, opens it up for some reason after a month and then hands it over to Rudy, and ultimately it went to FBI. Biden people shouldn’t have said it was likely Russians without evidence, but at the same time…that sounds like the plot of an FBI episode that got rejected doesn’t it?
They paid her off so it wouldn’t come out during the general election. The hush money payment wasn’t the illegal part. What was illegal is that they used campaign funds to reimburse cohen for doing so.
No, Cohen was reimbursed with non-campaign funds from one of the Trump business accounts.
The NDA money was a campaign donation and expense. Both concealed.
He procured the NDA to help his campaign.
No, the NDA was paid out of Trump business account(s),.. Prosecution argued that it one possible conviction angle was that it should have been looked upon as a federal campaign donation,.. Jury never had to identify how they arrived at their decision.
I think you have it backwards. Trump didn't file it as an election expense, he filed it as a personal expense. They claimed the money was used to sway the election so it should have been reported as an election expense.
I think your mistake proves that this lawsuit was a joke because it could have applied no matter how the hush money was filed.
No,.. Edwards actually used campaign funds to pay off his woman,.. Trump at least paid his woman out of Trump funds.
Did edwards use campaign funds but not disclose it? or did he disclose it?
Seems like this is worse than what Trump did. Hush money has been paid by people running or office as well as not running for office. It seems like a stretch that since Trump was running for office that it would be considered an election expense. I think Trump did it right (for what little that is worth).
