Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I’d say it’s a possibility. And not just because people might protest, but think of the unchecked power a president would have, and the things they could do. I totally understand that a POTUS can’t be concerned about being charged for murder for decisions they make as Commander-In-Chief of the military, for example; but if it was decided that a POTUS can essentially interfere in all manner of ways in the way states conduct elections, totally votes, or certify electors, we will be in some very deep shit. I don’t think that even this radical SCOTUS would decide that, it would be totally nuts.

As someone else mentioned if they rule that way the Biden admin could just refuse to relinquish power.

 

[CatchnShoot]

I'd like to add that it's a win win for the overall goal of actually having a criminal case conclude prior to the 2024 election. Leap frogging to Scotus circumvents an avenue of delay for team Trump... and that has them fuming lol.
Where are all the 5D chess 'tards now?

If Scotus were to rule that immunity applies in this instance, it would open up the march trial date for the Alvin Bragg criminal case in NY (they have reserved a March date and held on to it for just this eventuality).

In addition, if Fani Willis wanted to proceed earlier in Georgia I'm not certain that Bragg wouldn't step aside for Georgia as well.

Come March, Trump IS going to trial on a criminal charge, we just don't know which one as yet.

There ARE hapless lawyers, AG's and Judges... but this ain't that party (at least on the side of the prosecution).

 

[CatchnShoot]

man, you quote someone else's idea and everyone gives you shit for quoting..

Are you saying that you do NOT agree with him?

Your posting of that meat puppet carries with it an implicit suggestion that you subscribe to his particular argument. You are a proxy for his argument..and so ...

However, you know what? We don't KNOW how Scotus is going to rule. Yes primary (criminal) and appellate (civil) decisions have ruled against Trump's defense stating that the actions taken were NOT a part of his presidential duties. We can SUSPECT that Scotus will rule a certain way, but we can't KNOW.
We do KNOW that Scotus is deeply compromised, and a Conservative majority. We KNOW that if Scotus were to accept the Trump argument it would be a decision against self interest for the body, but we can not know how it will ultimately rule, and until that decision is made..... possibly prior to the end of 2023, but certainly in early 2024 I can't definitively say that you (or the fartbox you quoted) is wrong. I think it's a vapid argument, but ya never know.

Like how do they overturn Roe vs Wade? Like how does a CO judge find as a matter of law that Donald Trump participated in insurrection, and yet NOT disqualify him from the ballot.
HTF did OJ get off?

The law is full of things that I don't understand, but we shall see.

 

[HOLA]

Both of those things can be true at the same time, clearly, but I don't recall anything about the former claim. Sounds like they were just covering their asses so as to waffle on the subject of whether they support Trump or not.

The Turtle was the most notable one who said it:

“Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” added McConnell. “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

But McConnell – who, as Senate majority leader last month, rejected calls by Senate Democrats for a speedy trial during Trump’s final days in office – said Trump was constitutionally ineligible for conviction since the punishment is removal, and Trump was already out of office. McConnell claimed that a verdict before Joe Biden’s inauguration had been impossible.

McConnell argued that “impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice,” but suggested Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution in the future.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html

 

[Andy Capp]

The Turtle was the most notable one who said it:

“Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” added McConnell. “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

But McConnell – who, as Senate majority leader last month, rejected calls by Senate Democrats for a speedy trial during Trump’s final days in office – said Trump was constitutionally ineligible for conviction since the punishment is removal, and Trump was already out of office. McConnell claimed that a verdict before Joe Biden’s inauguration had been impossible.

McConnell argued that “impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice,” but suggested Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution in the future.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html

It's certainly an interesting tactic--while he's in office, "Nah, if you want him go after him through the justice system," and now it's, "Welp, if you wanted him you should have impeached him while he was president."

It's incredible that people fall for this shit. I mean, how dumb do you have to be? I think that's one of the reasons I have a difficult time telling the trolls from the dummies. Just when I think, nahhh you can't be that dumb so you must be trolling, I'm hit with a counter example of genuine jaw dropping imbecility like this, or like how what Trump did is really ok because he totally believed the election was stolen.

Worse yet, after it is explained to that lot in detail where they've gone wrong, they're like, "Oh well yeah but nah see it's like this," followed by some dodge or other, or they just take a powder altogether.


And it's all just because their candidate for Authoritarian of the Year is the leading Republican candidate in the next election. Spinless gimps, every one of them, regardless of the excuse.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If scotus rules a president has complete immunity and is essentially an autocrat, could that potentially set off a civil war or other violence?

I think the standard it would set internationally would be the real concern.
When Trump was President and appeasing world “leaders” that he shouldn’t be appeasing, that emboldens shitty people in power. SCOTUS saying the President is immune to everything, and the US not really playing right with international law, could be bad stuff.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

Can you link me to the post or video or whatever of Tim Pool making this case about needing to impeach and convict before criminal charges can be filed? When I read that just now in your post, it made me do that thing dogs do where they cock their head to the side. I just can’t fathom where in the Constitution or law he’d get such an idea. Makes no sense.

i'll try to find it, but it was a from a 2hr podcast and don't remember exactly what time.

 

[HOLA]

i'll try to find it, but it was a from a 2hr podcast and don't remember exactly what time.

Woah, I almost didn't recognize you without your perpetual yellow card! I'm sure it will be back soon enough.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

@BFoe

doesn't get into it too much at all

37:30 (cuing up not working)

 

[AWilder]

No bro, you don't understand, he Couldn't testify!

 

[LangfordBarrow]

as per tim pool, president has immunity from actions done as president (presidential duties, you chuds, you can't shoot random people), and if you want to charge him you have to impeach and convict first before filing any criminal charges, otherwise EVERY chud state prosecutor will charge any president for any reason any time they want.

see how dumb this is?

See how you're glossing over the fact that he's no longer President? The Senate didn't convict him so the indictments didn't start coming in until after Biden was sworn in.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

But he is a former president. Can you impeach a former president? I’m seriously asking.

Impeachment is the process to remove him from office. Now that he's no longer President he can be indicted just like anyone else.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

But if it gets thrown out by the scotus, they won’t go to trial? And the evidence is essentially buried? Wouldn’t the evidence being out there allow the people to make up their mind?

I think if the SCOTUS declines to hear the case then the existing ruling that he's appealing will remain.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I don’t know how one could even try and argue that these acrivities were within the scope of presidential duties. The Constitution is clear that the manner that elections are run, and the tallying of votes and certifying of electors, is in the purview of the various States. The POTUS has no role in this whatsoever, and that’s by design. This is hardly a case of, say, charging a POTUS with murder because of military actions they ordered as Commander In Chief— Presidential Immunity might make sense in that instance. What Trump was doing was altogether different.

Can you link me to the post or video or whatever of Tim Pool making this case about needing to impeach and convict before criminal charges can be filed? When I read that just now in your post, it made me do that thing dogs do where they cock their head to the side. I just can’t fathom where in the Constitution or law he’d get such an idea. Makes no sense.

The argument makes sense if the subject is still President. Since he can't be indicted while sitting, the impeachment and conviction would remove him from office, thereby allowing him to be indicted. His not being convicted did delay the indictment until after he lost the subsequent election.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I can see all the Democrat justices along with Roberts and Kavanaugh voting against this presidential immunity issue.

Thomas is a troll
Gorsuch is unpredictable- sometimes he makes great decisions, other times it seems he wants a monarchy
Alito is crazy
Barrett is a big ? cuz she should have never been there to begin with and she's probably just happy to make DJT happy.

I think the rulings they have already made against him indicate they aren't beholden to him. I'd expect kooky decisions from the more Conservative judges when it's in regard to the actual Jesus not just Orange Jesus.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

Impeachment is the process to remove him from office. Now that he's no longer President he can be indicted just like anyone else.

so that's how it works now? whenever a new president is in office, 50 dipshit AGs who are foaming at the mouth can file whatever charges they want against the previous one? yeah, that's a very healthy political system, just have your political rivals arrested.

the calling card of shithole countries...

 

[HARRISON_3]

No bro, you don't understand, he Couldn't testify!

He could’ve saved himself the trouble and just tweeted a giant crying emoji.

 

[koquerelle]

If scotus rules a president has complete immunity and is essentially an autocrat, could that potentially set off a civil war or other violence?

It's going to cause serious unrest, but it would have to get damn worse to reach a civil war. I don't see it.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

so that's how it works now? whenever a new president is in office, 50 dipshit AGs who are foaming at the mouth can file whatever charges they want against the previous one? yeah, that's a very healthy political system, just have your political rivals arrested.

the calling card of shithole countries...

If they're filing whatever charge without evidence they wouldn't secure an indictment. There's so much evidence against Trump that defending him is like pissing against the wind. You're just flailing wildly in order to cope with the reality that Trump is a charlatan.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

they are putting on a show. donnie aint gonna testify as a defense witness. the prosecutors will bury him alive in the cross examination, and that will be the last thing the judge will see befofre it goes to closing arguments.

no way in hell would he be stupid enough to show up. it'll be just like his rape trial, where they pretend like he wants to show up and testify and they act like he is going to show up and testify but when the day arrives for him to show up and testify, zesto molesto will just fuck right off and go golfing instead and then afterwards come up with some cockadoodle story about how he really wanted to show up and testify and all that, but his lawyers wouldn't let him, even though it's ultimately his choice and nobody elses.

No bro, you don't understand, he Couldn't testify!

never would have seen this coming. the pussy ass bitch had every right to testify and nothing was stopping him from doing so. it was his choice not to testify, and nobody elses. and he chose not to testify, his own reason being....because "they won't let me ignore their questions just to attack the court clerk." yeah thats cockadoodle alright. if it wasn't that, he would have invented 1000 other excuses not to show up and testify. my next guess would have been something along the lines of "They wouldn't let me hang a huge TRUMP 2024 banner right underneath the witness stand before i dodge all of the questions and turn this shit into a circus and a political campaign speeech just to impress my short bus supporters"

there is no way that the citron chicken was ever going to take the stand as a defense witness. he was always just going to tuck his dick and cluck.

he won't be testifying at ANY of his criminal trials either. that will be about the stupidest thing for him to do, but that won't stop chicken boy from telling everybody that he is going to testify at the trial and then puss out just like he did in all of his other trials. it's all just for show. there is not a single word of truth or a promise this sorry ass excuse of a human being will ever keep that will ever come out of his mouth.