- Local time
- Today, 11:43
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 8,131
The law is the law, except in
Rudy
- Thread starter jpl458
- Start date
- Local time
- Today, 06:43
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 46,955
He cannot be prosecuted for anything he did that was part of his official duties which includes trying to ensure an honest election. He was also charged with this offence during the second impeachment and was found not guilty. So, technically he can't be tried again. It is not unusual for the accused to offer multiple reasons why the persecution is invalid.
If you want to prosecute Trump for telling the governor of Georgia to make sure the count is correct, then next year you better want to prosecute Biden for giving 85 Billion dollars worth of the best military equipment MY money can buy to our enemies. This could be construed as Treason since it is aiding and abetting an enemy. And how about Millie calling the Chinese and telling them not to worry. "If Trump tries to start something", he will warn the Chinese??? How about Millie lying to Trump to prevent him from knowing that troops were not actually being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan as he - the Commander-in-Chief - directed??
It most certainly is! He is providing the influence of his office to people who transfer money to one of the Biden crime family's 22 LLC's and has been since his days as a senator. AND HE IS ON VIDEO TAPE CONFESSING TO THE CRIME!!!!!! Nobody cares about Hunter being the bag man. The point is, benefits to any family member, not just to the President or member of Congress personally constitute a crime. It is Biden committing this crime, not Hunter. Hunter's crimes run to tax evasion and money laundering which are also crimes and those would be attributed to Hunter.
Last edited:
- Local time
- Today, 11:43
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 8,131
What I mean Pat is that extortion is outside of the remit of his office, and therefore he should not get immunity for that extortion, if proved. He may be using the influence of his office, but that is not an official duty (when used criminally), if you see what I mean. He cannot hide behind presidential immunity for these crimes.
- Local time
- Today, 06:43
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 46,955
- Local time
- Today, 11:43
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 8,131
Trump was impeached for a perfect phone call where they said he lent on the Ukrainian president. If it was, it was the mildest of mild leanings. Very opaque. Compare that to Hunter Biden's phone call which sounded more like a threat from The Mob involving both him and his father as Mafia boses.
- Local time
- Today, 11:43
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 8,131
I think it would depend on the case, but in general, yes. If cases were identical, I would imagine you would refer to the previous precident.
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 03:43
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,055
Like all precedents, it would be either more or less applicable towards future situations depending on the 2 situations (original precedent and new one)'s set of unique facts, yes. Even jurisdiction of the deciding court will influence how the precedent controls in the future. (maybe not relevant here, but generally).
Keep something in mind. Most of what conservatives want to prosecute Biden for wasnt' even during his time as President. It was during his time as Senator and as Vice President. This fact may make our current conversation less useful, as he couldn't argue Presidential immunity while he was a senator, for example.
