OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[pooponduke]

EXACTLY! anyone paying attention would not be surprised by the ruling giving immunity for official acts. Without it As commander in chief a pres could be subject to a host of different indictments for military actions and so on. The question will be kicked back to lower courts to see whether or not the Jan 6 “stuff” would be considered an official act. The phone call to the ga gov and the fake elector scheme might be hard to frame as such. But tough to say what the parameters are. This will prob drag out in lower courts for a couple years.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

This is the thing that being so deep into the cesspool of hating someone makes one drown and not even be able to raise up their little heads long enough to see the reality and neutrality of such a ruling. @blazers wants examples of this having happened in the last 230 years simply ignores the foregone conclusions that he and others have made to get us to this point: Trump is a bad, bad, bad man who must have committed all these horrible crimes and therefore this whole notion of a president having immunity is just silly.

What that fails to grasp is the reality that we've never (at least that we know about) had one political party, both before and after a president's term, use the intelligence and prosecutorial arms of the government to go after the other party in such a fashion. That is, the issue of immunity for acts while in office has never really needed to be addressed before because no one dared to go after the former president. Nixon got a pardon as part of the deal and everyone else has been left alone. If Trump had served two terms already, this likely never happens and all the abuse of the intelligence community stuff likely never sees the light of day. He certainly isn't prosecuted for anything.

Every presidency has things that were done or not done that could be gone after if one looks hard enough. But, why would you unless it's simply one way to stay in power and you can't or are afraid you can't beat the other side at the ballot box?

 

[pooponduke]

and then shooting him on 5th avenue…even then, maybe not enough.

Well, that and then writing a book about it to brag how you'd done it because you are tough enough to do the difficult jobs that have to be done.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Jake Tapper has come around. Must be reading my poasts.

Tapper blasts Democrats' Orwellian tactics trying to convince public to 'not believe what you saw' at debate

CNN host Jake Tapper slammed Democratic Party leaders, arguing they are deliberately trying to deceive the American public about what they saw at the debate.

www.foxnews.com

 

[tarheel0910]

so one talking head made it sound like they are naturally hers…maybe he meant in a traditional sense.

Probably just assumed it, because it would be logical. I assumed the same thing before I read about it. I also read that the super delegates the Dems have don't vote on the first go around. So, someone could get less votes on the first vote, but end up easily winning if the super delegates vote for them in the second round. Weird process for them.

 

[pooponduke]

https://freebeacon.com/biden-admini...ing-migrants-trump-deported-back-into-the-us/

 

[blazers]

Nixon got a pardon as part of the deal and everyone else has been left alone.

Nixon would've skated under these rules for the crimes he committed.

If Trump had served two terms already, this likely never happens and all the abuse of the intelligence community stuff likely never sees the light of day. Every presidency has things that were done or not done that could be gone after if one looks hard enough.

You are "gone" if you think Trump has been a typical president. The individual rioters are being prosecuted, the oath keepers, proud boys and other leaders are being charged, fake-elector schemers are being charged, Rudy is being charged, the Kraken attorneys are charged -- insurrection and treason demand accountability.

PS many of these charges were levied before Trump announced his campaign to return November 15, 2022.

 

[blazers]

That is, the issue of immunity for acts while in office has never really needed to be addressed before because no one dared to go after the former president.

No one dared discredit election results in their first, second and third elections, and no-one directed fake-elector schemes, pressured the veep to interfere in certification, and applied pressure to states to find votes, egged on a protest that fomented treasonous insurrection attempts to halt cert.

 

[blazers]

What that fails to grasp is the reality that we've never (at least that we know about) had one political party, both before and after a president's term, use the intelligence and prosecutorial arms of the government to go after the other party in such a fashion.

"one"? You have a short memory. Trump has blatantly and directly stated he'd prosecute Hilary and Biden. Lock her up!
And Comer/Jim Jordan have attempted multiple times to find something prosecution-worthy on Joe Biden.

 

[gunslingerdick]

You are "gone" if you think Trump has been a typical president.

When are you going to acknowledge that the above statement is exactly why he has the support he has?

 

[gunslingerdick]

"one"? You have a short memory. Trump has blatantly and directly stated he'd prosecute Hilary and Biden. Lock her up!
And Comer/Jim Jordan have attempted multiple times to find something prosecution-worthy on Joe Biden.

 

[pooponduke]

"one"? You have a short memory. Trump has blatantly and directly stated he'd prosecute Hilary and Biden. Lock her up!
And Comer/Jim Jordan have attempted multiple times to find something prosecution-worthy on Joe Biden.

Funny. The thing is, I have a long memory and don't go for the false campaign rhetoric you spout. So, PLEASE, pretty please with a calorie free cupcake on top, name us any other administration that has EVER gone after and prosecuted a former president??

We'll wait . . . . . .

In the meantime, don't forget that you had a period of four years where your greatest nightmare was a reality and Hilary wasn't prosecuted. We're still waiting. . . . . .

So, yes, there is one. Those damn disgusting facts are always getting in the way of your campaign aren't they?

 

[pooponduke]

No one dared discredit election results in their first, second and third elections, and no-one directed fake-elector schemes, pressured the veep to interfere in certification, and applied pressure to states to find votes, egged on a protest that fomented treasonous insurrection attempts to halt cert.

You really have a hard time counting. He won 2016, he lost 2020 and still to this day questions the results. I think that's misguided, but that's the reality. When was the second time he dared to discredit election results? When was the third? Right now, is literally only the third time he has run. Number three is yet to be determined. But, somehow that results in him discrediting results in a fourth and a fifth election we don't even know about yet? Is that a prediction or just new math?

 

[pooponduke]

Nixon would've skated under these rules for the crimes he committed.

You are "gone" if you think Trump has been a typical president. The individual rioters are being prosecuted, the oath keepers, proud boys and other leaders are being charged, fake-elector schemers are being charged, Rudy is being charged, the Kraken attorneys are charged -- insurrection and treason demand accountability.

PS many of these charges were levied before Trump announced his campaign to return November 15, 2022.

I often wonder if you really believe what you type, just repeat ad nauseum the campaign talking points, or are really that far gonzo.

The S.Ct.'s decision on immunity was anticipated and expected by many legal scholars. It's only the get Trump crowd who is freaking out. Why would criminal immunity be any different from civil immunity? Why would the executive branches' immunity be any different from the legislative or judicial branches' immunity? And, yes, it's never came up before because no one was ever zealous enough to try and stop their political opponent through such actions.

Without such a ruling, do you understand the fallout? If Trump is elected, Biden could be prosecuted for every time an illegal murders/rapes someone. Obama could be prosecuted for the deaths of Americans as a result of drone strikes. Bush could be prosecuted for lying to us about WMD's. Hell, Truman could have been prosecuted for killing all those civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You need to be careful what you wish for because there is always the problem of unintended consequences. You want to get Trump now, but what comes down the road is what you really should be worried about. But that's really the heart of the problem with most of this stuff. The immediate desire is all that's at issue when thinking so emotionally and you never want to think it through with the long game. The next election is the issue for you, not what those elections end up doing in the long run.

 

[blazers]

You really have a hard time counting. He won 2016, he lost 2020 and still to this day questions the results. I think that's misguided, but that's the reality. When was the second time he dared to discredit election results? When was the third? Right now, is literally only the third time he has run. Number three is yet to be determined. But, somehow that results in him discrediting results in a fourth and a fifth election we don't even know about yet? Is that a prediction or just new math?

Before 2016 Trump said that the election is rigged.
"The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD,"

Just AFTER 2016 Trump said:
"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," said Trump.

Said the same before 2020 even was counted, and has said the same regarding 2024.

"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" Trump wrote on Twitter after the 2016 Iowa Caucus.

^ there's that one too. My bad, it was more than three.

 

[blazers]

Funny. The thing is, I have a long memory and don't go for the false campaign rhetoric you spout. So, PLEASE, pretty please with a calorie free cupcake on top, name us any other administration that has EVER gone after and prosecuted a former president??

We'll wait . . . . . .

In the meantime, don't forget that you had a period of four years where your greatest nightmare was a reality and Hilary wasn't prosecuted. We're still waiting. . . . . .

So, yes, there is one. Those damn disgusting facts are always getting in the way of your campaign aren't they?

Biden didn't direct the doj to prosecute Trump a president can't do that. He can direct the AG on policy issues, but not specific prosecutions (at least not til latest scotus ruling). He certainly didn't direct Fani in GA or the New Yorkers. The J6 committee ultimately pushed Merrick Garland into action in 2021. Garland should've acted immediately in 2020.

I love you have Trump making promises and you dismiss those.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Biden didn't direct the doj to prosecute Trump… He certainly didn't direct Fani in GA or the New Yorkers.

 

[pooponduke]

Biden didn't direct the doj to prosecute Trump a president can't do that. He can direct the AG on policy issues, but not specific prosecutions (at least not til latest scotus ruling). He certainly didn't direct Fani in GA or the New Yorkers. The J6 committee ultimately pushed Merrick Garland into action in 2021. Garland should've acted immediately in 2020.

I love you have Trump making promises and you dismiss those.

You can make whole cloth assertions as that's the beauty of a message board. However, the facts are that members of every single one of these prosecution teams have been to the WH prior to pursuing their charges. Play ostrich all you want and bury your head in the sand, but they weren't there to review the menu for the next foreign dignitary coming in to visit.

As to the J6 committee, it was rigged from the start when Pelosi set up who was on it and the rules by which they played. Any actual "good" work they may or may not have done outside of the entertainment value of the tv series they produced was totally undercut when their evidence mysteriously got destroyed. If it was all so damning to Trump, it would have been sealed and preserved forever so that one had to only review it in a special room while wearing gloves - kinda like the ACC treats the GOR.

Merrick Garland is not someone upon whom you should rely for anything. He has plainly lied to our faces multiple times. The fact that he is currently disobeying a subpoena and will not release the actual audio tape of our leader is stone solid proof of his partisanship versus serving in his role as a neutral decisionmaker. Keep kidding yourself. You are the only one who believes it.

 

[pooponduke]

or the New Yorkers

And on this one specifically, how many times are you going to overlook that the number three guy at the DOJ took a significant demotion, paycut, etc. to become part of this prosecution? But your right, Biden and his DOJ had nothing to do with these things being pursued.

 

[pooponduke]

We've seen this video multiple times before, but this new "translation" is pretty good.

 

[blazers]

A former president starts a fire for the first time in history. The latter president is in charge while the former president is investigated regarding the fire, and the investigations start BEFORE the former even files to run again. Yet @pooponduke blames the latter for overreach as the reason we need make a ruling for something not mentioned in the constitution... just keep on ignoring the one-in-a-countries-lifetime-fire as the reasons for prosecution though, definitely don't blame the former despite Mitch McConnell pinning it on him.

There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”

 

[blazers]

Without such a ruling, do you understand the fallout? If Trump is elected, Biden could be prosecuted for every time an illegal murders/rapes someone. Obama could be prosecuted for the deaths of Americans as a result of drone strikes. Bush could be prosecuted for lying to us about WMD's. Hell, Truman could have been prosecuted for killing all those civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would the specific charge be on one of the above?

 

[bluetoe]

so one talking head made it sound like they are naturally hers…maybe he meant in a traditional sense.

if anyone's talking head it's Kamala.

 

[nctransplant]

What duties did you have in mind? Maybe orchestrating a coup to overthrow our government?

Eat a snickers woopie.

 

[gteeitup]

if anyone's talking head it's Kamala.

👀

 

[bluetoe]

A former president starts a fire for the first time in history. The latter president is in charge while the former president is investigated regarding the fire, and the investigations start BEFORE the former even files to run again. Yet @pooponduke blames the latter for overreach as the reason we need make a ruling for something not mentioned in the constitution... just keep on ignoring the one-in-a-countries-lifetime-fire as the reasons for prosecution though, definitely don't blame the former despite Mitch McConnell pinning it on him.

There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”

oh wait, Mitch McConnell pinned it on him? Why didn't you say so before? This changes everything, our opinions are unanimously reversed and we are now firmly on the anti-Trump bandwagon along with you and your new friend Mitch. All persecutions now seem not only justified, but completely necessary for the preservation of truth and justice and democracy and our way of life and motherhood and the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore and...

TRUMP STARTED THAT FIRE. The fire burning in your head, that is. Did you think that the sheer idiocy of the quoted words would make an impression or did you think that the political position of the idiot speaking them would? Oops, fail. Sorry. Here's a little something to consider.....

Anti-Trump Mitch McConnell

"McConnell’s cold arrangement with Trump was strictly business: McConnell protected Trump in exchange for Trump packing the court. While few truly deeply loathe Trump more than McConnell, nobody has been a more consequential enabler or fatally miscalculated the spread of his stain."

LMAO at you providing this quote in one of your weakest attempts to validate your uber-biased POV I've seen lately. Actually not just weak, it sort of ridicules your case. Or am I missing something?

 

[bluetoe]

What would the specific charge be on one of the above?

illegal campaign contribution.

 

[Archer2]

Is there anybody you squad members wouldn’t vote for if he were running against Trump?

Amin?
Hitler?
Putin?
Xi?
Hussein?

 

[Archer2]

“What that fails to grasp is the reality that we've never (at least that we know about) had one political party, both before and after a president's term, use the intelligence and prosecutorial arms of the government to go after the other party in such a fashion. That is, the issue of immunity for acts while in office has never really needed to be addressed before because no one dared to go after the former president.”

Exactly.

 

[pooponduke]

“What that fails to grasp is the reality that we've never (at least that we know about) had one political party, both before and after a president's term, use the intelligence and prosecutorial arms of the government to go after the other party in such a fashion. That is, the issue of immunity for acts while in office has never really needed to be addressed before because no one dared to go after the former president.”

Exactly.

He probably didn't even read this part in my post as the things they have done are simply inconsequential from his perspective because it is all and only about stopping the orange menace. It is truly the textbook definition of any means whatsoever justifying the ends. The fact that he is now quoting Mitch for support is downright comical.

This is the type of stuff that they will do

 

[chickenhunter]

A former president starts a fire for the first time in history. The latter president is in charge while the former president is investigated regarding the fire, and the investigations start BEFORE the former even files to run again. Yet @pooponduke blames the latter for overreach as the reason we need make a ruling for something not mentioned in the constitution... just keep on ignoring the one-in-a-countries-lifetime-fire as the reasons for prosecution though, definitely don't blame the former despite Mitch McConnell pinning it on him.

There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”

McConnell is in worse physical and mental shape than biden.

 

[pooponduke]

What would the specific charge be on one of the above?

What does it even matter? The point is whoever gets in next can find something to go after their predecessor without even the obvious things these acts could theoretically entail if they so choose. No one dared to cross this line until your champions. 230 years and your braintrust is the first. Let that sink in.

If a prosecutor choses to go after someone, they can get very creative, as we are seeing. The guilty findings on your convicted felon are now likely to result in a new trial because the judge in NY let in all kinds of evidence about Trump's official acts that should have been excluded or suppressed under the S.Ct.'s ruling. This is only part of the reason for the stupidity of the judge's failure to postpone the matter until after such rulings. And this is probably part of the real reason you are freaking out over this development. He was asked multiple times to wait until this ruling, but just had to push forward prior to the election. Bias much?

This is only part of the stupidity to be using federal law to find a basis to go forward in a state court. Heck, I bet you don't even realize that one of the remaining charges in Jack Smith's case was a statute that was originally passed to deal with the Klan denying blacks the ability to vote. None of that matters, just stop him, right? And you think that other former presidents or presidents to be couldn't be charged such that immunity isn't necessary.

 

[pooponduke]

This was not my original thought, so I won't claim it. It came from a host/talking head on a network that some claim to not ever watch or respect in any fashion, but I think it's a really good question or concept that is worth throwing out here for chewing on.

If Trump is this terrible, horrible, life altering person who will destroy our "democracy" and rule as a dictator seeking wide spread retribution against his political enemies, why on earth would you anoint and run Joe? If this was so important and potentially life altering for our country and the world, how could you possibly not pick someone better than One Bad Night Biden? This is on you, D's. Thanks for ruining everything for our kids and grandkids.

 

[pooponduke]

McConnell is in worse physical and mental shape than biden.

That (Biden v. Mitch) would be a tough race to, um, lose. But this is the guy who blaze wants to cite as authoritative about Orangeman.

 

[nctransplant]

The report is wrong unless they are talking about an outside group that can spend the money for any candidate. Any money that was donated to Biden for president has to be spent on Biden. I guess maybe Biden could have written in some kind of loophole that would allow him to spend it on another person, but I've never heard of that happening.

You might want to check your sources.

 

[tarheel0910]

You might want to check your sources.

I've read it on multiple sites talking about campaign laws. If money is donated to a campaign, it has to be spent on that campaign.

 

[nctransplant]

I've read it on multiple sites talking about campaign laws. If money is donated to a campaign, it has to be spent on that campaign.

Her name is on the FEC filings.

 

[bluetoe]

I've read it on multiple sites talking about campaign laws. If money is donated to a campaign, it has to be spent on that campaign.

I've read the same thing, but you know the dems...if there isn't a loophole they'll just make one. In actuality, I've also read there may already be potential loopholes that involve creative bookkeeping entries, a tactic they have only recently discovered. It isn't legal, especially when it covers up de facto campaign contributions...but who's gonna prosecute a dem?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Looking more and more like Biden is out and Kamala will be the candidate. Lol. Trump won't even have to campaign to beat her. She's a guaranteed L for the Dems.

 

[nctransplant]

Looking more and more like Biden is out and Kamala will be the candidate. Lol. Trump won't even have to campaign to beat her. She's a guaranteed L for the Dems.

Dims are losers anyway. Proof you say? Look no further than this board.

 

[nctransplant]

For the Libs on the board, remember you can call or text 988.