Liar Liar Pants On Fire

[jpl458]

If that is your interpretation, then you should be condemning the Democrats for attempting to pull this ridiculous stunt of stripping Trump of Presidential immunity.

That means,as of this point in time, that Biden is immune as well, or does immunity only apply to the former President and to no one else?

 

[jpl458]

Clearly you can't separate "Presidential" immunity from the ordinary type of immunity.

Presidential immunity does not cover crimes committed outside of the duties of the office of the President. If the President pulls a gun and shots someone, he is not immune from being prosecuted for that crime. If the President, while is was not the President, engaged in a criminal money-laundering and influence peddling scheme, he would not be immune from prosecution for those crimes. If the charges arose while he was serving as President, the House would decide whether or not to impeach him - it depends on if the crime were on-going as this one with the Biden crime family seems to be - and then the Senate would need to convict. Otherwise, the criminal prosecution would have to wait until the President left office. So, the silly "hypotheticals" used to strip Trump's Presidential immunity are irrelevant. As a President, he would never have been immune of the crime of murder - except as it related to his Presidential duties. The closest we've come to this conundrum was with Obama ordering the assassination of American citizens - which he is SPECIFICALLY NOT authorized to do by American law. If a President orders the military to kill a terrorist, that wouldn't be a crime that he could be charged with once he left office. The World court at the Hague might see things differently. But not US law.

Stripping Trump of the lawyer/client privilege awarded to ALL citizens was just plain wrong and I promise you, it WILL hurt Biden once he leaves office and it will hurt every subsequent President. Stripping Trump of the presidential privacy privilege which allows him to talk to his advisors without having to worry about them being pulled into court to testify against him was just plain wrong and I promise you, it WILL hurt Biden and all subsequent Presidents. If the President cannot talk to his staff with the assurance of privacy, he cannot do his job and if you think he can, then I'm sorry but you are an idiot and it's a really good thing you will never be the President.

If we were to allow Presidents to be charged with crimes because we didn't like their policy or the outcome of some action, every President would be hit with a rash of lawsuits once he left office and spend the rest of his life in jail or defending them. Every President who has ever served this country has made some mistake that others would love to be able to "punish" him for.

I ask again, if Trump is immune from prpsecution, is Biden immune as well? Simple question.

 

[Isaac]

Nothingburger. The FBI can discredit any witness, any time. Many against one. I'm pretty sure they're coming for Bobulinski, too, although I doubt he's lying, on balance

 

[Isaac]

I ask again, if Trump is immune from prpsecution, is Biden immune as well? Simple question.

I think it depends on what act is being prosecuted, under what time period, right? Simple but invalid question that presumes a level of simplicity that just doesn't exist

 

[moke123]

I hope that you realize that the Democrats have filed a bogus lawsuit to strip a President of immunity as a frenzied attempt to get Trump.

What lawsuit might that be?

to strip a President of immunity

How does one strip something from somebody when they didn't have it to begin with?

Not if they've perfected their cheating.

Speaking of cheating, Did you see the news about your favorite cinematic masterpiece, 2000 mules?

Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing

A conservative group that claimed to uncover a ballot stuffing scheme in Georgia has told a judge it has no evidence to back up its allegations.

apnews.com

Presidential immunity does not cover crimes committed outside of the duties of the office of the President.

correct. And campaigning is outside those duties..

 

[moke123]

Wow. 350 million+.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==

 

[AccessBlaster]

Wow. 350 million+.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==

You robbed @jpl458 of starting another new thread, that's not being a team player.

 

[moke123]

I have faith in @jpl458 . He'll find something.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Oh yeah

 

[AccessBlaster]

Why didn't letitia james charge the banks with fraud? They were conspiring with Trump to defraud NY city, right?

 

[Steve R.]

Seems to me, that if you were to use a witness against a sitting President, that you would have the dude completely vetted before you use his testimony. Otherwise it could get embarrassing, when it turns out to be a lie.

Once again, you make a sensational anti-Trump post, that upon inspection turns out to be a case of selective prosecution that ignores the greater legal corruption by the Democrats. So a CHS that accuses H. Biden gets indicted, but CHSs, such as Steele and Halper, who provided misinformation (lies) concerning Trump don't get indicted. Sounds like an inconsistent application of the law for the purpose of protecting the Biden administration and crippling Trump's efforts to clear his name.

Special Counsel Indictment Looks As Bad For Weiss As The CHS

No one in Weiss’s office investigated Smirnov’s claims against Hunter and Joe Biden until after Grassley released a copy of the FD-1023.

thefederalist.com

"No one in Weiss’s office investigated Smirnov’s serious claims against Hunter and Joe Biden until after Grassley released a copy of the FD-1023 on July 20, 2023."

"On Thursday, Special Counsel David Weiss unsealed an indictment charging a longtime confidential human source (CHS) with making false statements. But it wasn’t Christopher Steele, the CHS who threw the country into turmoil for four years by peddling the fraudulent Steele dossier. Former CHS Stefan Halper, who helped further the Russia-collusion hoax, also wasn’t the subject of the indictment. Nor was CHS Rodney Joffe, who sought to destroy the Trump presidency with the Alfa Bank hoax."

"Consider the lies peddled in the Steele dossier to our FBI. CHS Christopher Steele represented his sourcing as trusted, reliable, and well-placed when it was none of those things. That dossier led to the DOJ obtaining four unconstitutional surveillance warrants against an innocent American, resulted in our government spending millions investigating a hoax, and impaired the functioning of the Trump administration. Yet even after Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham referred the matter to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation, Steele reaped no consequences for the lies he sowed.

Then there was CHS Stefan Halper who, according to an electronic communication, told the FBI the Russian-born Svetlana Lokhova had “latched” onto Michael Flynn at a Cambridge academic gathering and then, after the dinner, “surprised everyone and got into [Flynn’s] cab and joined [Flynn] on the train ride to London.” Halper, however, never attended the dinner, so he could not have witnessed any of the happenings, and the supposed cab ride was completely fictional."

 

[AccessBlaster]

Breaking news: New York State declares Trump sneakers only worth $18. Will seek 1 billion dollar fine to help the victims who bought $400 sneakers, now worth thousands.

 

[jpl458]

You robbed @jpl458 of starting another new thread, that's not being a team player.

Moke is doing a good job on his own. I have asked that if Trump has immunity wouldn't Biden have the same. Yes or No. But no one answers directly.

 

[jpl458]

Because there is NO absolute yes or no answer to the question. For there to be a Yes/No option it needs to 100% one or the other and the answer is "it depends". But, there is no ambiguity in the answers. If Trump is immune, then Biden is immune for the SAME OFFENSE. You keep wanting to make the offenses different and so no one is going to say that Biden is immune in situation a but Trump is not because that isn't how it should work. It is how the Dems want it to work however.

If Trump is immune from all prosecution for crimes committed in office, as he states, then anyone who holds that office is also immune. Is that correct? Not talking about Herbert Hoover or Grover CLeveland, et.al. If one President is immune for all Prosecution, it seems to me that all Presidents were, are, will be immune as well.

2 Hearts

 

[AccessBlaster]

If Trump is immune from all prosecution for crimes committed in office, as he states, then anyone who holds that office is also immune. Is that correct?

Doesn't matter, we don't prosecute the cognitively impaired. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[jpl458]

That is not an answer.

 

[AccessBlaster]

That is not an answer.

I know it sucks, right?

 

[jpl458]

I agree with that. Let me go mathnatical. Two numbers equal to the same number are equal to each other, Is that correct?

 

[AccessBlaster]

I agree with that. Let me go mathnatical. Two numbers equal to the same number are equal to each other, Is that correct?

You're trying to equate persecution with prosecution, it's not the same animal.

 

[jpl458]

No, I am not. Old phrase,"What's good for the goose is good for the gander." I ask a very simple question that you can't seem to answer. Think of it as a "Horns of a dilemma" kind of question. If you say Yes, then Biden is immune as well, if you say no then you are saying Trump is above the law. Very simple. So which is it?