US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues

[robosmith]

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What a stupid f you are.

You honestly think that Hunter was just selected to work there because he was the best candidate on earth? He even admitted that he got that $1M/yr job because of his dad. He doesn't speak Ukrainian and he had never worked in the energy sector before. 

His dad lied about his knowledge of Hunter's business dealings - turns out he was in close contact with everyone.

The Bidens/Dems lied about why Shokin was fired, plus Joe hired the guy who let Zloch off the hook. 

It's all there.

Leftards wonder why minorities and college-educated Americans are turning towards Trump lol.

Maybe not everyone is as dedicated to lying as you, hodad, beave, eyeball, robo and ex-flyer are. 

You certainly dedicated to ^these fantasies which require ^these LIES. Thing is, you don't even understand you're LYING when you spread the gospel of MAGA and your savior Trump.

Of course Hunter was selling "influence." That is NOT illegal, unless you got a copy of the contract which guarantees specific deliveries. Of course YOU DO NOT. Nor do you have evidence that any (non) official policies were delivered.

You just connect unrelated dots and pretend that is EVIDENCE which proves YOUR AGENDA.

Still believe FOS LIES, dontcha. LMAO

Edited January 17, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Some day, hopefully soon, for your sake, you're going to wake up from ^these fever dreams you've been having, and kick yourself hard for what a fool you've been.

You mean because he's arguing with an 1diot?

Meh - it's true trying to talk sense to a .... actually what are you again? Spider monkey? Anyway,... trying to talk sense to a 'lower intellect creature'  is largely a fools errand but for some of us it's an amusing hobby. Like teaching a dog to roll over or play dead - not very practical but amusing

[Legato]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You certainly dedicated to ^these fantasies which require ^these LIES. Thing is, you don't even understand you're LYING when you spread the gospel of MAGA and your savior Trump.

Of course Hunter was selling "influence." That is NOT illegal, unless you got a copy of the contract which guarantees specific deliveries. If course YOU DO NOT. Nor do you have evidence that any (non) official policies were delivered.

You just connect unrelated dots and pretend that is EVIDENCE which proves YOUR AGENDA.

Still believe FOS LIES, dontcha. LMAO

Do you eat a lot of alphabet soup?

[Deluge]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Some day, hopefully soon, for your sake, you're going to wake up from ^these fever dreams you've been having, and kick yourself hard for what a fool you've been. You'd better hope it's before you wind up in prison like those PB and OK who are in for over 10 years.

Your illegitimate president is a liar, robowoke, and so are you. Nobody believes you. 

MAGA 2024!!

 

[godzilla]

25 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Your illegitimate president is a liar, robowoke, and so are you. Nobody believes you. 

MAGA 2024!!

 

i just loved that speech! a classic Trump speech. entirely vacuous of any policy. aside from, we are going to solve all world conflict, we are going to rebuild America etc etc... and just like his first administration, he has no frickin idea how he's going to do any of those things.

[Caswell Thomas]

On 1/13/2024 at 7:07 PM, CdnFox said:

Ummmm - you realize you just proved what he claimed.  You literally just said 'yes, we don't like him and so we want him out of the race'.

That literally IS election interference and an affront to democracy. That's democrats saying democracy should not be allowed if we dont' approve of the candidate.  You have just said that.  Did you think before you wrote that?  @Deluge was 100 percent right based on what you just said.

 

You clearly do not understand the difference between "election interference" and " voting". Voting determines who gets elected. People decide who to vote for. If they don't like someone running, that is called DECIDING Who to Vote FOR , and if that doesn't elect the candidate they wanted well that's a shame but it is NOT " Election Interference".  

[Caswell Thomas]

On 1/13/2024 at 8:43 PM, Deluge said:

Sorry wokejobs, it's not your place to remove candidates you don't like. This is yet another reason normal citizens and patriots are sick of your endless bullshit. 

Sorry Rethugians, as an INDEPENDENT, I and many others similar thinking to me, who refuse to vote for fraudulent con men thug thieves or others resembling them, will vote such people out and you can't stop us. 

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

You clearly do not understand the difference between "election interference" and " voting".n Interference".  

LOL - nice try kiddo. I can see why you'd want to change the channel given how your reply proved his point    but you were BOTH discussing election interference and you did accept that.  HE said 'you want to get rid of a candidate" and you said "yes because he's such a bad person we don't think he should be a candidate'.

Thats still you interfering in that election and it's STILL trying to get rid of candidates.  You're STILL weaponizing the law to try to block a political opponent that you don't like.

And that's still terrible. No matter how you slice it that would be trying to affect the outcome of an election by corruptly preventing people from being able to choose.

You should feel ashamed - that's not what democracy is about

[Caswell Thomas]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - nice try kiddo. I can see why you'd want to change the channel given how your reply proved his point    but you were BOTH discussing election interference and you did accept that.  HE said 'you want to get rid of a candidate" and you said "yes because he's such a bad person we don't think he should be a candidate'.

Thats still you interfering in that election and it's STILL trying to get rid of candidates.  You're STILL weaponizing the law to try to block a political opponent that you don't like.

And that's still terrible. No matter how you slice it that would be trying to affect the outcome of an election by corruptly preventing people from being able to choose.

You should feel ashamed - that's not what democracy is about

Voting determines who.is allowed to run and who isn't in America. We have two televised primaries, the democratic and the republican. But those are not the only primaries. America has 37 political parties and every one - minus those without current active members - puts forth a Candidate. The Green Party is the next most heard from but its mostly disorganised and never makes enough of a showing to actually appear on any ballots except some local ones in various States.  Then there's The Peace and Freedom Party, last doing anything on the congressional record in 2020 when it put forth its presidential candidate Gloria due Var, in 2012 they selected Roseanne Barr, the actress as their desired candidate for President. My point here is you need to do a lot more research than just listening to TruthbBullship. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Voting determines who.is allowed to run and who isn't in America.

Not if you never get a chance to vote because someone chose to take that right away from you.

Sorry sunshine, you've already admitted to it. You've tried to rig the ballot and remove someone because you don't think they should be a choice because you don't like them.

That's all there is to it. Its a shame you didn't just let the people decide by vote but there you go.  It doesn't get more authortarian anti-democracy than that. "Ve ze nazi democratic party have dezided to allow you to Vote, provided yor only choize is our preferred Candidate!" 

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Sorry Rethugians, as an INDEPENDENT, I and many others similar thinking to me, who refuse to vote for fraudulent con men thug thieves or others resembling them, will vote such people out and you can't stop us. 

Trump isn't slowing down, psychopath. Even after all your bullshit lawsuits and election rigging, the man is still on top and he's going to run your pedophile-in-chief, right over.

[BeaverFever]

On 1/11/2024 at 1:58 PM, WestCanMan said:

Impeachment is part of the process for charging a president with a crime. Just learn that.  

Nixon wasn't impeached, tried, etc. because he was pardoned by Ford. 

Impeachment is only for a sitting president you thundering m0ron. Impeachment means prosecuting a holder of public office. You don’t impeach ex-presidents or someone who has already left office  

Nixon wasn’t impeached because he resigned first. His Republican criminal pal pardoned him to avoid a normal investigation prosecution of crooked republicans, kicking off a rich Republican tradition that every GOP president has followed. 
 

Don’t you ever get embarrassed by how little you know?  Seriously. 

 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Impeachment is only for a sitting president you thundering m0ron

Nonsense.  where does it say that? Trump's second impeachment  began AFTER he was president.  So that right there should tip you off that you were wrong.

If you can't impeach someone after they're president how did they make that work with trump?

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nonsense.  where does it say that? Trump's second impeachment  began AFTER he was president.  So that right there should tip you off that you were wrong.

If you can't impeach someone after they're president how did they make that work with trump?

Because:

 He was impeached by the House seven days prior to the expiration of his term

and

At the beginning of the trial, Senator Rand Paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a former president, arguing that impeachment only applies to current federal officers and that the punishment of removal from office was moot under the circumstances. Supporters of proceeding with the trial argued that the Constitution also permits disqualification from holding future office, which the House had requested in its article of impeachment. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=The second impeachment trial of,Representatives on January 13%2C 2021.
 

I

 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Because:

 He was impeached by the House seven days prior to the expiration of his term

and

At the beginning of the trial, Senator Rand Paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a former president, arguing that impeachment only applies to current federal officers and that the punishment of removal from office was moot under the circumstances. Supporters of proceeding with the trial argued that the Constitution also permits disqualification from holding future office, which the House had requested in its article of impeachment. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=The second impeachment trial of,Representatives on January 13%2C 2021.
 

I

 

Dude - from your own cite:

began on February 9, 2021,

Trump was no longer president then.

On January 20, 2021, Biden was sworn in by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts as the 46th president of the United States,

It was not  BEFORE he left office - it was AFTER he left office.

And yes they had that talk but it was decided that he COULD be impeached after he  left office.

I don't mind you correcting me if i'm wrong but why post a cite that proves i'm right?

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

Impeachment is only for a sitting president you thundering m0ron. Impeachment means prosecuting a holder of public office. You don’t impeach ex-presidents or someone who has already left office  

Nixon wasn’t impeached because he resigned first. His Republican criminal pal pardoned him to avoid a normal investigation prosecution of crooked republicans, kicking off a rich Republican tradition that every GOP president has followed. 
 

Don’t you ever get embarrassed by how little you know?  Seriously. 

 

I understand the definition of the word you classless little turd, but Trump's lawyers are making the case that impeachment is required in cases where the president would be indicted for anything that they did in their official role as president.

There's a strong case to be made that a federal judge judge and the people present in a regular courtroom lack the security clearances to be granted access to all of the information that would be required to reach a decision in court.

TBH, in this instance that might not be of the utmost concern, but anyone with a brain (in your case you'll have to ask around) can imagine circumstances where a DA might want to indict, but the issue is so sensitive that it would have to go through the senate first.

Trump tried to make the case that it if the Senate wasn't required as a first step then any activist judge/DA could target ex-presidents just because they didn't like them, and normally I'd say that's not a good enough reason, but after seeing all the activist BS from leftist judges lately, even that reason makes sense.

Don’t you ever get embarrassed by how stupid you are, and how often you get caught lying, collusion boy?  😉

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Dude - from your own cite:

began on February 9, 2021,

Trump was no longer president then.

On January 20, 2021, Biden was sworn in by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts as the 46th president of the United States,

It was not  BEFORE he left office - it was AFTER he left office.

And yes they had that talk but it was decided that he COULD be impeached after he  left office.

I don't mind you correcting me if i'm wrong but why post a cite that proves i'm right?

I think he was impeached earlier, and the impeachment started on that date:

Quote

 Donald Trump had been impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives on January 13, 2021. 

Joe was inaugurated on the 20th, 7 days later.

Still, they could have just dropped the impeachment after he was out of office if it was only necessary to remove him from office.

"We, the Senate, find you EVEN MORE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THAN YOU WERE BEFORE!!!!!" DUN dun ddduuuunnnnnnn.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I think he was impeached earlier, and the impeachment started on that date:

IF he was unimpeachable after he left office and you can't impeach someone after they left then if the proceedings hadn't started before he left office it would not be legally possible to continue.

And in fact that was brought up. And they decided you could impeach after someone left office. I mean think about it - if the house had voted to then they'd still have to go to the senate, which is a seperate process and would have started LONG after he left.

Take a look:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565

"it appears that most scholars who have closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office.

As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office.

This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor-general of Bengal."

That's from the congressional research service. It would seem that there's a great deal of evidence to support the idea that a president CAN be impeached at a later time after they've left office.

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2024 by CdnFox

[robosmith]

On 1/11/2024 at 1:58 PM, WestCanMan said:

Stop putting your own stupid words in my mouth, dumbass. This is just another topic that's way over your head. Just let the adults discuss it while you play Pokemon Go with your uncle. 

For everyone else who's reading this:

Impeachment is part of the process for charging a president with a crime. Just learn that.  

Nixon wasn't impeached, tried, etc. because he was pardoned by Ford. 

Re: Trump, just like a normal American would be investigated, indicted, etc., criminally charging Trump would need to follow a process as well. The difference is that they'd go through the impeachment process first. 

That's because judges are not a co-equal branch of the US Gov't. As a result they don't get to rule on executive decisions: it's way above their pay grade.

You've already been shown that ^this is WRONG.

On 1/11/2024 at 1:58 PM, WestCanMan said:

Would it make sense if little Tanya Chutkin could unilaterally rule on executive decisions made by the POTUS? 

Chutkin can only make the INITIAL RULING. SCOTUS has the last word, and CAN convict the POTUS.

On 1/11/2024 at 1:58 PM, WestCanMan said:

Could she have charged Harry Truman with mass murder for dropping nuclear bombs? 

Should US presidents be answerable to mere circuit court judges? Obviously not.

Trump's lawyer never said anything like "He could go uncharged" or whatever. He just said "There's a process that starts with impeachment" [paraphrasing]

Don't take Beave's words or the words of that author as a reasonable summary of the lawyer's comment. They are not. I can tell a person anything, that doesn't make me responsible for their twisted recollection of it. Eg, if Einstein explains the theory of relativity to a child, and they say "light is weird", that doesn't mean that Einstein said "light is weird". 

You've never cited ANYTHING to corroborate ^these OPINIONS which you will discover are wrong when the SCOTUS overrules Trump's immunity arguments. 

[robosmith]

On 1/13/2024 at 11:43 PM, Deluge said:

Sorry wokejobs, it's not your place to remove candidates you don't like. This is yet another reason normal citizens and patriots are sick of your endless bullshit. 

No one here wrote and PASSED the 14th A. Duh

On 1/14/2024 at 12:04 AM, Deluge said:

Yes, roborepeat. You woketards keep spewing that nonsense but it doesn't make you look any less stoopid. Perhaps you perverts should just stfu? 

You first.

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, Deluge said:

Your illegitimate president is a liar, robowoke, and so are you. Nobody believes you. 

MAGA 2024!!

 

You don't have to believe me, just the EVIDENCE I POST. Unlike you who only posts YOUR OPINIONS,

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I understand the definition of the word you classless little turd, but Trump's lawyers are making the case that impeachment is required in cases where the president would be indicted for anything that they did in their official role as president.

There's a strong case to be made that a federal judge judge and the people present in a regular courtroom lack the security clearances to be granted access to all of the information that would be required to reach a decision in court.

TBH, in this instance that might not be of the utmost concern, but anyone with a brain (in your case you'll have to ask around) can imagine circumstances where a DA might want to indict, but the issue is so sensitive that it would have to go through the senate first.

Trump tried to make the case that it if the Senate wasn't required as a first step then any activist judge/DA could target ex-presidents just because they didn't like them, and normally I'd say that's not a good enough reason, but after seeing all the activist BS from leftist judges lately, even that reason makes sense.

Don’t you ever get embarrassed by how stupid you are, and how often you get caught lying, collusion boy?  😉

Don't you ever get embarrassed by posting ^these OPINIONS which are routinely shot down.

Like the SCOTUS will do when they shoot down Trump's lawyer's ridiculous claim.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I think he was impeached earlier, and the impeachment started on that date:

Joe was inaugurated on the 20th, 7 days later.

Still, they could have just dropped the impeachment after he was out of office if it was only necessary to remove him from office.

"We, the Senate, find you EVEN MORE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THAN YOU WERE BEFORE!!!!!" DUN dun ddduuuunnnnnnn.

But it wasn't "only necessary to remove him from office." It was also necessary to prevent him from running again.

McConnell and Trump's lawyers BOTH argued that conviction was NOT NECESSARY to hold Trump accountable for his crimes. Were they LYING WCM?

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude - from your own cite:

began on February 9, 2021,

Trump was no longer president then.

On January 20, 2021, Biden was sworn in by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts as the 46th president of the United States,

It was not  BEFORE he left office - it was AFTER he left office.

And yes they had that talk but it was decided that he COULD be impeached after he  left office.

I don't mind you correcting me if i'm wrong but why post a cite that proves i'm right?

Dude - read it again and actually think before you write for a change. It clearly says he was impeached one week prior to leaving office so you might want to try amd use some brain cells to figure out the discrepancy between that and the February date also mentioned in the same post. Clearly the vote to impeach was before he left office, the actual impeachment hearing itself started in February  Get it?

 

From the same article  

 

Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired.

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Still, they could have just dropped the impeachment after he was out of office if it was only necessary to remove him from office.

"We, the Senate, find you EVEN MORE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THAN YOU WERE BEFORE!!!!!" DUN dun ddduuuunnnnnnn.

The stated reason for proceeding with the impeachment was that if successful it would have prevented him from running for a second term in the future