What's new
By:
Filters

Donald is about to go through some things...

www.yahoo.com

Judge rejects Trump immunity claim in federal 2020 election case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump does not have immunity from criminal charges for actions he took as president, a U.S. judge ruled on Friday, rejecting his bid to toss out the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith accusing him of unlawfully trying to overturn his 2020 election loss...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Donald Trump does not have immunity from criminal charges for actions he took as president, a U.S. judge ruled on Friday, rejecting his bid to toss out the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith accusing him of unlawfully trying to overturn his 2020 election loss.

"Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass,"

Because Trump is the first current or former U.S. president to face criminal charges, Chutkan's ruling is the first by a U.S. court affirming that presidents can be charged with crimes like any other citizen.

Chutkan's ruling brings Trump a step closer to facing a jury on charges that he plotted to interfere in the counting of electoral votes and obstruct congressional certification of Biden's victory.

In addition to the case being pursued by Smith, Trump also faces state criminal charges in Georgia related to his actions seeking to undo his 2020 defeat and two other indictments.
 
Never in the history of America has any perp beaten 91 felony indictments. Not Al Capone. Not Jon Gotti, The DOJ has a 95% or better conviction rate.

Trump was NOT indicted by Jack Smith. Trump was NOT indicted by Alvin Bragg, Trump was NOT indicted by Fani Willis.

Trump was indicted by 4 separate Grand Juries comprised of ordinary citizens in 4 different jurisdictions in 4 different States
 
I liked this comment I saw: Republicans are all in with Trump. Democracy has not worked out for Republicans. We voted in a black President. We approved of gay marriage. Now the LGBTQ community is getting rights. and of course we have voted a female of mixed race as VP. It all goes against 2000 years of Biblical teaching. Society is changing and there is nothinig Evangelical Christians can do about any of it except encourage a dictatorship. Republicans are willing to give up some of their freedoms to ensure that their religion dominates society.
 
fishonjazz said:
I guess you didn't read the article.
Click to expand...
I read the article but the framing is silly. You could use their same framing to have a hypothetical head-to-head match-up between Biden and Golden Retriever puppies. The puppies would crush but everyone knows puppies aren't likely to be on the ballot opposite Joe Biden. The Biden camp has no reason to spend political capital attacking puppies. In reality, the Biden campaign wants Nikki Haley to be as fierce of a competitor as she possibly can be in hopes that she will do some damage to Trump the Biden campaign can make use of in the general. Criminally prosecuting Nikki now is the opposite of what they'd want to do.
 
1311334b8d6f12fd596ed47befd2905d.jpg


Sold!
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I read the article but the framing is silly. You could use their same framing to have a hypothetical head-to-head match-up between Biden and Golden Retriever puppies. The puppies would crush but everyone knows puppies aren't likely to be on the ballot opposite Joe Biden. The Biden camp has no reason to spend political capital attacking puppies. In reality, the Biden campaign wants Nikki Haley to be as fierce of a competitor as she possibly can be in hopes that she will do some damage to Trump the Biden campaign can make use of in the general. Criminally prosecuting Nikki now is the opposite of what they'd want to do.
Click to expand...
Lol, the article wasn't actually saying that anyone should prosecute Nikki. In fact it said the opposite. It mentioned that she hasn't done anything that could be prosecuted. It was simply an article saying that Nikki is a bigger threat to beat biden than trump is.

(also, biden isn't prosecuting trump)
Trump was NOT indicted by Jack Smith. Trump was NOT indicted by Alvin Bragg, Trump was NOT indicted by Fani Willis. Trump was not indicted by Joe Biden.

Trump was indicted by 4 separate Grand Juries comprised of ordinary citizens in 4 different jurisdictions in 4 different States
 
fishonjazz said:
Lol, the article wasn't actually saying that anyone should prosecute Nikki. In fact it said the opposite. It mentioned that she hasn't done anything that could be prosecuted. It was simply an article saying that Nikki is a bigger threat to beat biden than trump is.

(also, biden isn't prosecuting trump)
Trump was NOT indicted by Jack Smith. Trump was NOT indicted by Alvin Bragg, Trump was NOT indicted by Fani Willis. Trump was not indicted by Joe Biden.

Trump was indicted by 4 separate Grand Juries comprised of ordinary citizens in 4 different jurisdictions in 4 different States
Click to expand...
Say it as many times as people express the fact that they don't understand this.

Trump committed crimes. A grand jury agreed that there was enough evidence for a trial. Trails are happening. The wheels of the Constitutionally mandated due process are spinning... slowly. This is all exactly as it should be.
 
fishonjazz said:
Trump was indicted by 4 separate Grand Juries comprised of ordinary citizens in 4 different jurisdictions in 4 different States
Click to expand...
True, and prosecutors often brag they can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In one of the grand juries, the foreperson went on TV to gleefully admit her total bias and desire to be involved in the process.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
True, and prosecutors often brag they can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In one of the grand juries, the foreperson went on TV to gleefully admit her total bias and desire to be involved in the process.
Click to expand...
Every jury member ever is biased. That's why juries have more than one person on them.

The ham sandwich line that has become so popular amongst Trump supporters and consumers on conservative media is hilarious. Like tell me you're in an information silo without telling me you're in an information silo. That statement has no real meaning and doesn't advance the understanding of the charges against Trump. The charges against Trump have merit. In many cases he has more or less admitted to the basic premise of the charges live and in person. He's a lot more than a ham sandwich, he's an entire gigantic pig.
 
Sardines said:
That [ham sandwich] statement has no real meaning and doesn't advance the understanding of the charges against Trump.
Click to expand...
Trump is irrelevant. The line was intended to advance the understanding of grand juries. It goes back to the late 1970's and it is a great line. If you had asked a group of random people 10 years ago what they knew about grand juries I would bet dollars to doughnuts the most popular response from those who knew anything at all would involve 'ham sandwich'.

The 'ham sandwich' idiom's recent rise in popularity among the media you've been taking in is only due to the recent rise of material related to grand juries, not because Trump is getting more coverage now than he did in 2016 when it was all Trump all the time.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
True, and prosecutors often brag they can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In one of the grand juries, the foreperson went on TV to gleefully admit her total bias and desire to be involved in the process.
Click to expand...
You should check the conviction rates on these things
Prosecutors aren't just finding dudes who committed no crimes, getting an indictment from a grand jury and going and losing in court

Your love of trump has caused you to think the justice system is rigged against trump. It's extremely weird.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Prosecutors aren't just finding dudes who committed no crimes, getting an indictment from a grand jury and going and losing in court
Click to expand...
Sometimes they do. A grand jury is a pretty low bar. There is a reason someone who has been indicted is still supposed to be presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Sometimes they do. A grand jury is a pretty low bar. There is a reason someone who has been indicted is still supposed to be presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you think prosecutors like to lose cases. It's an interesting strategy.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Sometimes they do. A grand jury is a pretty low bar. There is a reason someone who has been indicted is still supposed to be presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...
I think we all get that. I think the reason why mentioning the grand jury is valuable is because Trump and his followers are often saying these charges are completely baseless. The entire point of a grand jury is to prevent completely baseless cases from going to a trial. I mean there's a reasonable chance that ham sandwich was up to no good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top