Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

[K1levelgrappler]

*tears in my eyes* I’m sorry SIR Mr. Donald John President SIR, you’ve been to been sentenced to die tomorrow at dawn. You’re to be put to the sword by Lord Joe Brandon himself.

 

[High Test With da Best]

You can't be serious, can you?

I'll read about it if it's posted, hope you're both enjoying your day

 

[CatchnShoot]

No, YOU source it. You said above "It’s an insane level of corruption: “How dare you charge our candidate for the crimes you have evidence that he committed! Reeee!”

So what evidence are you talking about and what is the source?

A link to the daily transcripts of the trial that gave us Felon Trump.


Therein lies your proof. Peruse at will.

 

[CatchnShoot]

*tears in my eyes* I’m sorry SIR Mr. Donald John President SIR, you’ve been to been sentenced to die tomorrow at dawn. You’re to be put to the sword by Lord Joe Brandon himself.

Somebody on his legal team really should explain to tiny-D that the absolute most he could face is 20 years in jail, and that, in fact he's likely to walk away with a fine.

I expect that somebody will be brave enough to tell him, right after his family tells him that he looks fucked with make up and a comb over avec plugs.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I'm not sure why you're getting upset about this . . . I very clearly stated . . . everyone plays the victim when it's convenient. People complain about the violation of rights when it's convenient to their argument or ignore it when it's convenient to do so.

Trump is a dirtbag who tramples on rights when it helps his image. Just like Biden and others have done with the 2A.

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

Gave you the like but TR7MP literally broke the law. He also stated to take people's guns away first and then figure it out later before he was informed what a ridiculous thing it was to say.

I don't know that Biden or anyone else has actually infringed on anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. They want to pass gun control legislation just like some people want to pass legislation restricting abortions.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I posted that to prove how idiotic your previous post was. And then you double down on the moron-level by claiming to have scoured through all 388 pages in NINE MINUTES.
Next I bet you'll try to claim you already knew what was in the 388 pages and didn't need to read it again.

Again, I'll give you the opportunity to provide the evidence that got Trump convicted, like you claimed in your original post. Just do it.

So in other words you were posting in bad faith and have no actual source.

 

[Confucamus]

Um…no?
They want to defund needed government agencies because they are butthurt that they are supporting someone for POTUS who is charged (and now convicted) with dozens of felonies.
It’s pretty fucked up, actually.

It’s an insane level of corruption: “How dare you charge our candidate for the crimes you have evidence that he committed! Reeee!”

I mean….seriously?

Using a legal process that needs Congressional approval. They could just as easily lose. The case against Trump was about as blatant an example of a weaponized DOJ going after the current president's main political rival as we've ever seen in our lifetime. That corruption absolutely needs to be rooted out.

 

[andnowweknow]

*tears in my eyes* I’m sorry SIR Mr. Donald John President SIR, you’ve been to been sentenced to die tomorrow at dawn. You’re to be put to the sword by Lord Joe Brandon himself.

Is that real? Lol. The fact I even have to ask that is ridiculous.

 

[spamking]

Gave you the like but TR7MP literally broke the law. He also stated to take people's guns away first and then figure it out later before he was informed what a ridiculous thing it was to say.

I don't know that Biden or anyone else has actually infringed on anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. They want to pass gun control legislation just like some people want to pass legislation restricting abortions.

Again, all I'm saying is people take sides when it's convenient. Some folks are all on board with various rights being restricted while others aren't. It all depends on which right is being focused on.

The most recent "gun safety" bill that was passed is currently infringing on gun owner's rights to buy/sell privately. Or it was until it was smacked down in court and put on hold.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

I'll read about it if it's posted, hope you're both enjoying your day

*honk honk*

 

[kflo]

Using a legal process that needs Congressional approval. They could just as easily lose. The case against Trump was about as blatant an example of a weaponized DOJ going after the current president's main political rival as we've ever seen in our lifetime. That corruption absolutely needs to be rooted out.

which case against trump are you referring to? the one he was convicted in? the other cases where the evidence appears to be equally as strong and even more egregious crimes?

 

[BFoe]

Using a legal process that needs Congressional approval. They could just as easily lose. The case against Trump was about as blatant an example of a weaponized DOJ going after the current president's main political rival as we've ever seen in our lifetime. That corruption absolutely needs to be rooted out.

I don’t agree. I know this theory is popular among some right wing groups right now (like the Heritage Foundation), but I think it’s clear that Jack Smith was lawfully appointed. I’ll break down why.

While the Appointments Clause in Article 2, Sec 2 of the Constitution does mention needing advice and consent of the Senate for various appointments, it also says:

“…but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” (Bold is mine, for emphasis).

And that’s exactly what Congress did when they passed 28 CFR 600.1 which empowers the Attorney General, who is of course the head of a department, to appoint a Special Counsel.

One of the things I see being said online is that Jack Smith has no authority because he’s not a judge or attorney in the US; but if you look at 28 CFR 600.3, it actually specifies that the Special Counsel must be selected from outside the U.S. government—which, incidentally, David Weiss and John Durham were not (they were both US attorneys). Garland and Barr got around this requirement in the same way, which I won’t go into now for time’s sake but can if you’d like.

Re: qualifications, 28 CFR 600.3 just says the Spec Counsel must be an attorney with ample experience and must be well informed on DOJ policies, which of course Smith is. If any Spec Counsels are improper, it’s Weiss and Durham—not Jack Smith.

None of this is new btw. Paul Manafort tried to challenge Robert Mueller’s authority using the same argument, and the judge wasn’t having it. Aileen Cannon has seemed quite receptive to the argument though (lol), and Clarence Thomas as well because of course he is

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Using a legal process that needs Congressional approval. They could just as easily lose. The case against Trump was about as blatant an example of a weaponized DOJ going after the current president's main political rival as we've ever seen in our lifetime. That corruption absolutely needs to be rooted out.

Brooo, c'mon now, there's actual evidence and he's losing these cases. He's a fraud, a career tax cheat, his image was cultivated for decades by providing fake stories about himself and burying negative ones.

Real abuse of power is what he did to Biden that got him impeached. There's no doubt anymore. The guys a narcissist and a liar with an ego so fragile he'll attack anyone that says a negative word and was at war with fucking Rosie O'Donnell for years. Keep voting Republican but drop this turd already.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Again, all I'm saying is people take sides when it's convenient. Some folks are all on board with various rights being restricted while others aren't. It all depends on which right is being focused on.

The most recent "gun safety" bill that was passed is currently infringing on gun owner's rights to buy/sell privately. Or it was until it was smacked down in court and put on hold.

Is that really a right though? The right to bear and sell arms? Personally I don't want guns being sold without background checks and a paper trail. If you want to sell then go through a dealer or get the license yourself if you're selling so many guns.

 

[syct23]

Somebody on his legal team really should explain to tiny-D that the absolute most he could face is 20 years in jail, and that, in fact he's likely to walk away with a fine.

I expect that somebody will be brave enough to tell him, right after his family tells him that he looks fucked with make up and a comb over avec plugs.

Well seeing as how trumps old doctor was going on about how he was so healthy, that he wouldn’t be shocked if trump could live to 120 years old…

A 20 year sentence doesn’t sound that bad at his age..

 

[BFoe]

Again, all I'm saying is people take sides when it's convenient. Some folks are all on board with various rights being restricted while others aren't. It all depends on which right is being focused on.

The most recent "gun safety" bill that was passed is currently infringing on gun owner's rights to buy/sell privately. Or it was until it was smacked down in court and put on hold.

But you *did make an argument. Our entire back and forth yesterday started based on the idea you expressed that Trump is a better choice than Kamala Harris.

But whatever. If you can’t see the difference between Trump operating well outside the law and his authority to try and disenfranchise millions of lawful voters, and Congress/legislatures using their lawful legislative authority to pass laws that they don’t believe are infringements of the 2A then you just can’t see it, I guess.

 

[spamking]

Is that really a right though? The right to bear and sell arms. Personally I don't want guns being sold with background checks and a paper trail. If you want to sell then go through a dealer or get the license yourself if you're selling so many guns.

Is it really a right to sell your private property?

And what does "so many guns" even mean?

 

[spamking]

But you *did make an argument. Our entire back and forth yesterday started based on the idea you expressed that Trump is a better choice than Kamala Harris.

But whatever. If you can’t see the difference between Trump operating well outside the law and his authority to try and disenfranchise millions of lawful voters, and Congress/legislatures using their lawful legislative authority to pass laws that they don’t believe are infringements of the 2A then you just can’t see it, I guess.

But whatever indeed . . .

 

[idrankyourbeer]

this is probably fake but lol

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Is it really a right to sell your private property?

And what does "so many guns" even mean?

It's not baseball cards it's a lethal weapon that makes criminals much more dangerous. By so many I mean if it's too much trouble to go through a dealer that will document the sale and run a background check. You can also sell on consignment with a dealer or sporting shop. If it's your main source of income then get your own dealer license.