BeaverFever Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 Mitch McConnell, 2021 on Trump’s role in the Jan 6 attack and why congress should not impeach him….because he is still civilly and criminally liable for it impeachment is not the right course of action. Oops “There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day…The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," he said, "and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…still liable for everything he did. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” Mitch McConnell, February 13, 2021 Oops. Quote
CdnFox Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 24 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Haha nice try. You realize you say that or something like it everytime you're losing a discussion? It's becoming like a 'tell' Quote They were loudly criticized and were forced into justify the legality of the strike, including a court -ordered release of internal memos on the topic and its legality…. So not charged. Just as i said. Sigh. If you're going to disagree with me on stuff could you at least not admit i was right? Quote not once did they claim presidential immunity applied which would have been a much easier way to shut down the discussion. Didn't need to. NEVER.... CHARGED. Critisized? Sure. Asked to justify their actions? Of course. Gov'ts get that for pretty much everything they do. Charged or even threatened with charges? No. Not at all. So why would you bring up a defense that says you coudn't be charged unless you were charged? If the rest of congress and the senate disagreed with his reasoning they could have impeached. That's still on the table. But of course they were never charged with crimes. Using the courts to attack political opponents and threaten to jail them is new. THat's a democrat invention, so now it's come up . I wonder with this ruling in hand what trump will do during his next term? The dems i think will regret violating the tradition. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Hodad Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 2 hours ago, Aristides said: Turns out Nixon didn't need to resign after all. The Watergate coverup was legal. Exactly. Any such crime--and far worse--can no longer be prosecuted. Free pass for aspiring Putins. Quote
Aristides Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 The SCOTUS just turned the US into a monarchy. Be hilarious if it wasn't so frightening and sad. 31 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Mitch McConnell, 2021 on Trump’s role in the Jan 6 attack and why congress should not impeach him….because he is still civilly and criminally liable for it impeachment is not the right course of action. Oops “There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day…The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," he said, "and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…still liable for everything he did. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” Mitch McConnell, February 13, 2021 Oops. Mitch is just another political weather vane, he'll come up with some justification for this. Quote
Aristides Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 4 hours ago, West said: What you are asking for is Venezuela style socialism where whatever Biden decrees as a crime goes and results in imprisoning political adversaries. It's quite sick I think you have it backward, this decision could now make that possible for a president. 1 Quote
Aristides Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 2 hours ago, User said: He was about to be impeached and would have been convicted in the Senate. He was pressured to resign so it wouldn't come to that. Your first post here and continued insistence of not backing off it prove otherwise. How could he be impeached for doing something that was legal? Quote
User Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 Just now, Aristides said: How could he be impeached for doing something that was legal? You clearly didn't bother with even trying to research what the impeachment was about. What a shame, it is so easy to google this stuff. The world is at your fingertips. 16 minutes ago, Hodad said: Exactly. Any such crime--and far worse--can no longer be prosecuted. Free pass for aspiring Putins. I see you are still well entrenched in your ignorance on this subject. Quote
cannuck Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 (edited) On 7/1/2024 at 1:34 PM, West said: No a sitting president cannot just order the assassination of a US citizen Why not? Roosevelt consciously allowed 3,500 or so Americans to be killed at Pearl Harbour. Nixon and Johnson ordered 58,000 Americans to be killed in Vietnam. What's one more Yank between friends? Not to worry, though. Biden will quit a few days before the DNC virtual convention and Newsom will take his place. Edited July 3, 2024 by cannuck Quote
Aristides Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 12 minutes ago, User said: You clearly didn't bother with even trying to research what the impeachment was about. What a shame, it is so easy to google this stuff. The world is at your fingertips. I see you are still well entrenched in your ignorance on this subject. Given today's political climate, I doubt very much Nixon would have been forced from office. Partisanship is now a religion. 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 59 minutes ago, CdnFox said: You realize you say that or something like it everytime you're losing a discussion? It's becoming like a 'tell' So not charged. Just as i said. Sigh. If you're going to disagree with me on stuff could you at least not admit i was right? Didn't need to. NEVER.... CHARGED. Critisized? Sure. Asked to justify their actions? Of course. Gov'ts get that for pretty much everything they do. Charged or even threatened with charges? No. Not at all. So why would you bring up a defense that says you coudn't be charged unless you were charged? If the rest of congress and the senate disagreed with his reasoning they could have impeached. That's still on the table. But of course they were never charged with crimes. Using the courts to attack political opponents and threaten to jail them is new. THat's a democrat invention, so now it's come up . I wonder with this ruling in hand what trump will do during his next term? The dems i think will regret violating the tradition. NOT ONCE IN ALL OF THE INTENSE DEBATE AMD CRITICISM DID ANYONE SUGGEST OBAMA HAD PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY How hard is that to understand???? FFS stop being so obtuse Quote
CdnFox Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 1 hour ago, Hodad said: Exactly. Any such crime--and far worse--can no longer be prosecuted. Free pass for aspiring Putins. But it can be impeached. The fact you repeatedly ignore so that you can maintain this ridiculous chicken little act you've got going on Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: NOT ONCE IN ALL OF THE INTENSE DEBATE AMD CRITICISM DID ANYONE SUGGEST OBAMA HAD PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY How hard is that to understand???? FFS stop being so obtuse Do you need me to type it slower for you Do i need to fetch my crayons? Why .... would.... there..... be.... discussions.... about..... something..... that ....... wasn't .....being ..... considered? You know what else wasn't discussed? The fact that if he went to court he had a right to an attourney. Didn't come up once. Want to guess why? Also no mention of the appeal process. Want to guess why? Also nobody actually confirmed he would not face a firing squad. Want to guess why? Sensing a theme there? It's just DUMB to suggest that the fact nobody mentioned something THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN is some how proof that it was going to happen. They knew not to charge him so there was no need to talk about it Repeat it till it sinks into that brain of yours. Don't make me repeat something so bloody obvious again. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Hodad Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 3 hours ago, User said: The person doing the hand waving here was you... again, nothing honest about this: "With no law capable of constraining the executive, the last barrier to dictatorship has fallen, along with all of John Roberts hopes for legacy. Instead, should the country survive to remember, this court will live in infamy." Thank goodness you're here to present the "Nuh-uh," argument.🙄 Quote
CdnFox Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 21 minutes ago, Hodad said: Thank goodness you're here to present the "Nuh-uh," argument.🙄 It's an appropriate response to someone like you who brought the "duuuh duuuuh" argument. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
BeaverFever Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Why .... would.... there..... be.... discussions.... about..... something..... that ....... wasn't .....being ..... considered? Holy Christ are you serious? I need to be the one typing slowly for you. International memos spelling out the legal arguments supporting the legality of the strike BEFOREHAND made no mention of Presidential immunity There was a civil suit that was dismissed without mentioning Presidential immunity With all the controversy and demands for justice from civil liberty groups etc and there were many….and the explanations provided in response SOMEONE would have pointed out the obvious that they’re immune if that was the case But it’s not the case there was no blanket immunity Stop being so dense, it’s annoying Quote
CdnFox Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 57 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Holy Christ are you serious? I need to be the one typing slowly for you. Kid, you are bordering on being too stupid for this conversation. Quote International memos spelling out the legal arguments supporting the legality of the strike BEFOREHAND made no mention of Presidential immunity It's not international law. Why would they. International courts worry about international laws. The US law and constitution would not apply. Quote There was a civil suit that was dismissed without mentioning Presidential immunity It's already been noted this doesnt' apply to civil suits. Trump already lost that one. But a civil suit is not a criminal charge. Did you reallly need that explained? Quote With all the controversy and demands for justice from civil liberty groups etc and there were many….and the explanations provided in response SOMEONE would have pointed out the obvious that they’re immune if that was the case No, that is beyond stupid . I know you desperately and feverishly want somehow for what you're saying to be true but it isn't. It wasn't mentioned because he wasn't charged. You know who also didn't mention it till he was charged? Trump. Sigh. Go to bed kid. maybe in the morning you can think of a real argument. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
User Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 3 hours ago, Hodad said: Thank goodness you're here to present the "Nuh-uh," argument.🙄 Which is still more than you presented. Quote
Nationalist Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 12 hours ago, Hodad said: Exactly. Any such crime--and far worse--can no longer be prosecuted. Free pass for aspiring Putins. Lol...and guess who is in the sights of the incoming POTUS? Enjoy the election... And the fallout. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted July 3, 2024 Report Posted July 3, 2024 11 hours ago, BeaverFever said: NOT ONCE IN ALL OF THE INTENSE DEBATE AMD CRITICISM DID ANYONE SUGGEST OBAMA HAD PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY How hard is that to understand???? FFS stop being so obtuse LOL...Oh you Libbies are SO FCKED! Enjoy the election. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.