So is Trump begging for Immunity or did he “do nothing wrong”?

[OddBeMe]

Mixed signals much?

He wants immunity for crimes he committed

Immunity for crimes he didn’t commit (which makes no sense)

[Mr_twoface]

When you become someone important, whether it being a leader of a nation, a father figure for a child, and/or a preacher for a group of people, you have an obligation to follow set of moral values and norms integreated in our society. You are looked up on and your words and actions, can impact those surrounding you.

Trump didn't explicit say storm the capitol among many other things, but his bullying and twisted rethoric has unfortunately divided the nation. Like a preacher, he has with his words made a lot of people believe that the whole establishment is and has always been corrupt and he is not among them to be held accountable. Is it right or wrong? Well, thats up to each individual to decide.

I personally believe he, not being a politician to begin with, didn't initially do anything wrong but his bullying overtime has caused so much disagreement in the country that the democratic party is trying to stop him from re-entering the political scene.

[OddBeMe]

Why do you fucks care about “someone important” or not? You are all in this cult of worshiping anyone who sticks it to libs. Thats a pretty sorry political party.

[Twalli]

He should have expected it considering the types of groups that attended his rallies.

[goaded]

@Twalli It's called Stochastic terrorism. You don't instruct a particular person to do your will, you tell millions what you think of a person or group in the expectation that one of them will be nuts enough to do something about it.

Like the Pelosi attack, which Trump joked about afterwards.

[strateguy632]

trump did less than hilary clinton so equality before the law is considered didnot do anything wrong. problem is people hate trump. the justice system made him a target so he needs "immunity from prejudice." and i expected you question has bad poll options

[goaded]

I must have missed the Jan 6 2017 invasion of the Capitol, and the convictions for seditious conspiracy in its aftermath.

[strateguy632]

@goaded on jan. 6 trump did NOT "invade" . he DID tweet "be peaceful" so those accusation false.

[strateguy632]

to @OddBeMe tnx for mho, appreciation!

[goaded]

Trump spent weeks gathering an armed mob to do his dirty business for him, and he only tweeted be peaceful when the attack had failed and minutes after painting a target on Pence's back.

[milyjohn]

He was impeached for an insurrection he was never charged with. (banana republic)

He was impeached for a Russia hoax started by Hillary. (banana republic)

(oh, and nothing happened to Hillary)

The Dems are taking him off of ballots because of their fear.

"Immunity for crimes he didn’t commit (which makes no sense)"

How does that not make sense in a banana republic?

[milyjohn]

@goaded
Why was he impeached?

[Danny_dan92]

@goaded

He was impeached multiple times (cause democrats are sore losers)

Now they’re trying to get rid of him for “crimes” he committed after he made it clear he’s running again for re election (cause democrats are sore winners)

Bottom line, democrats are sore losers and winners. Legitimate question, if what Trump has been charged for and accused of is legitimate and all… why are they barely going after him now? And not when he did the actions? Afterall that’s how law works right? If someone kills someone you don’t wait years later to charge them when you have… evidence.

[milyjohn]

@Danny_dan92

Dan, it's obvious the MAGA guys did it, you can tell by their hats!

[goaded]

@Danny_dan92 Trump was impeached twice. The first time for making a phone call (that no doubt sounded like the Reffensperger call) demanding political favours from Ukraine in exchange for giving them what they'd been promised, the second was for the attack on the Capitol.

57 senators voted to convict the second time, many of the rest (all Republican) claimed that the justice system should deal with Trump, instead.

AG Merreck Garland seemed unwilling to prosecute Trump, but to avoid allegations of political influence, he passed on the case to a Special Counsel, Jack Smith, who is persuing the matter more forcefully. Had Trump just shut up and gone away, he would probably have got away with everything. Maybe not the documents thing, because he took them, and kept them, and hid them, and lied about having them; if his judge ever allows it to get to trial, it will last maybe a week and he will be found guilty.

(Isn't it funny how some posts seem to go missing?)

[Danny_dan92]

The irony is Joe’s Son Hunter was doing shady business dealings with Ukrainian companies backed by the Ukrainian government. And Joe Biden was behind it.

The same FBI is clearly unwilling to prosecute him nor is he being impeached. Explain that

[goaded]

@Danny_dan92 No, that's not true. If there was any serious evidence for that, they wouldn't be messing about claiming thousand dollar car loans (while Joe was a private citizen) weren't car loans. Meanwhile, they're ignoring the millions funnelled to Trump's businesses by foreign governments and the billions "invested" with Kushner.

[Danny_dan92]

I gotta say. I have to give you props for not getting triggered and begin name calling and going crazy, and keep your cool and simply debate. It is something that is missing in our country.

That being said though, honestly this isn’t going to go anywhere. We’ll just continue to disagree. And we’re both pointing the finger, to that I say. We both will see what happens and who was actually correct

[goaded]

@Danny_dan92 Ditto.

[milyjohn]

@Danny_dan92

Dan, Joe never ONE talked to his son about what he does for a living. Yes, he did once call the Hunters business partners in Ukraine, but he just made the long distance call to ask about the weather.

[Danny_dan92]

Yeah but the mafia made phone calls like these. The FBI discovered this by wire tapping their places of business and homes. They have code phrases.

For example when asked “how’s the weather today?” What it really meant was

“Did you receive the goods?”

If you don’t believe me, look up Micheal Franzis (probably butchered his last name) but anywho, he was a former Italian mafia member and he says a lot of troubling stuff. The same government that toppled the Mafia, adopted a lot of their perks and literally took over.

Just one example, the mafia used to control the constitution industry as well as the ports (receiving and processing goods) the government is now in charge of that…

[milyjohn]

@Danny_dan92

Oh, I thought something didn't add up. I just thought he didn't have a weather app on his phone.

[Danny_dan92]

https://youtu.be/ywJMY-n0nzw?si=Bp_7V7hXYP8o7hDO

[Danny_dan92]

See for yourself

[goaded]

@Danny_dan92 @milyjohn is actually correct (apart from the phone call was between Joe and Hunter, not "Hunters business partners in Ukraine"); Hunter's business partner, Devon Archer, testified to that fact. Hunter's a conman, his father is not. Well, not more than any normal politician. (If you look into the Shokin firing, you'll also see that he was fired with the approval of multiple worldwide governments and entities because he was corrupt and not investigating companies like Burisma.)

It beggars belief that you can decide that that phone call that nobody's heard was probably mafia-like, but the Raffensperger phone call, which we have heard, presumably wasn't.

Before anybody says it, I do detect the sarcasm.

[milyjohn]

@goaded

Are you voting for Biden in 2024?

[Danny_dan92]

I don’t think he lives in America

[goaded]

@Danny_dan92 Nor am I American (although I have cousins close who are).

[Twalli]

@Danny_dan92 Trials take a long time. They couldn't charge him and have him move for an expedited trial unless they had enough evidence to proceed.

[exitseven]

the line of thinking is that if a president is arrested on things that he did while in office he might be hesitant to take action because if it went bad he could end up in prison. Sort of what the liberals are doing to cops. Cops are afraid to arrest a minority because they could be fired , lose their pension of end up in prison. As a result they just let them go.

[OddBeMe]

And this is why historians bring up 1930s Germany. A time of violence where they talked themselves into a dictatorship for safety.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe yes, it would be better to stop the small crimes. William Bratton started the broken windows system when he was police commissioner in NY under Mayor Giuliani. The premise is to prosecute for the small crimes and people will not try the bigger ones. It was such a big success tht cities all across the country adopted it. The democrats have done just the opposite. Where I live there is actually a list the democrat DA said that would not be prosecuted. Things like drug dealing, vandalism, shoplifting, and even assault. Now everyone is wondering why crime has skyrocketed. Another Wahlgreens in the inner city is closing. Everyone is shocked. Just shocked.

[OddBeMe]

And yet crime is just at a crawl. Had some issues coming out of lockdown…and inflation spiked it a bit. But seriously everyone is thinking it’s escape from NY when it’s been nothing but Pleasantville.

[exitseven]

Crime is what? A crawl? I do not know where you live but there is looting in every democrat run city. Shooting are a daily occurance, Junkies are ripping off people left and right. My next door neighbor's house was broken into in broad daylight. For the first time on my life I felt like I needed firearms because I can no longer depend on the cops. The country is a lot less safe than it was 3 years ago,

[OddBeMe]

I think you’re watching news who increase crime reporting 400% above lowering crime rates.

[exitseven]

No I watched the cops come to my house to ask me if I saw the people that broke into my next door neighbor's house.

[OddBeMe]

I can’t beleive how often I have to remind fucks here that personal experience IS NOT evidence.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe It is all the evidence I need/

[OddBeMe]

It’s actually called the “anecdotal fallacy“…recognized for creating illogical arguments. Just fyi…
www.scribbr.com/.../

[exitseven]

I suppose that my next door neighbor's smashed cellar door is an anecdote as well?

[OddBeMe]

Yes. By definition. My cat died of feline aids. wtf! Feline aids must be out of control!

No actually. See?

[Notherndude84]

He did plenty wrong, impeached and convicted. He’s a criminal and a Demagogue.

[strateguy632]

actualy the senate acquited trummp in 2021. they could not convince people that he even incited , let alone did insurrection.

[goaded]

@strateguy632 They convinced 57 senators, plus the ones who thought the justice system should deal with it (and the ones who were afraid to vote to convict).

[Twalli]

@strateguy632 you mean they didn't impeach him, not being impeached doesn't mean you're innocent

[goaded]

@Twalli He was impeached, he wasn't convicted. And, no, it certainly doesn't mean you're innocent.

[Twalli]

@goaded kind of my point.

[Notherndude84]

Donald Trump and many of his criminal co-conspirators have already been found liable for damages, he will not escape prosecution for many of his crimes. Jack Smith has an amazing track record of dealing with high profile criminals like the former president

[OddBeMe]

@Twalli If he was convicted by the Senate what would happen to Trump? Just out of office. It’s not a criminal court.

[Notherndude84]

You seem to not know that just because congress clears him doesn’t mean he can’t he held liable in a criminal court.

[OddBeMe]

Sure but it’s not criminal court.

[Twalli]

Yeah, it isn't and it has no bearing on what the court decides.

[Notherndude84]

It’s theoretically possible but it would not be easy to do. Sadly in America if you have money, influence, power, white skin and live in certain areas you have advantages over others Americans in the criminal justice system.

Though I will extend an olive branch to say that being poor and white in some states is no picnic.

[OddBeMe]

@Twalli I would agree as an impeachment itself wouldn’t be considered evidence, but the evidence in the impeachment hearing.

[Twalli]

And an impeachment doesn't consider whether or not it's a crime. It decides if the acts should remove the person from political elections. The criminality of such acts isn't at issue.

[Notherndude84]

I’m not an expert on the subject, but I believe criminal referrals can be sent to the DOJ, but it’s not the function of lawmakers to adjudicate.

[OddBeMe]

Either way…impeachment ain’t criminal courts thus Repub arguments that Trump is only liable to Congress is utter bullshit.

[Twalli]

All Congress can do to the POTUS is remove him from office for actions he took as POTUS. Then the courts (civil and criminal) can do what they deem necessary. A sitting president cannot be tried for any crimes he committed, but once he's no longer president, the rule against criminal charges no longer holds. However, most legally grey acts are covered under executive privilege.

[OddBeMe]

@Twalli not sure where you get the executive privilege part. That’s a myth that’s only supported by party politics.

[goaded]

@Twalli His argument at the moment (he, and scared Republican senators, made the opposite during his impeachment trial) is that the courts can only do what they deem necessary IF he's impeached and convited in Congress.

[Twalli]

@goaded That only holds true if the crime was committed while in office and he didn't leave. Nixon could have been convicted in Watergate after he resigned. He resigned because he knew that he'd be removed from office if he went through the impeachment vote. The courts chose not to prosecute him because he actually didn't participate in the break in and having knowledge of it and using it isn't a crime.

[goaded]

@Twalli We'll see in a few days whether it's true at all. Nixon was pardoned by Ford, the courts didn't get involved (and they'd have had 50 years of more law-abiding presidents, if they had). Sitting presidents have immunity from civil suits, because they can be brought by anybody and would seriously affect the running of the country.

[msc545]

He wants immunity for crimes he committed obviously. Even his lawyers are not stupid enough to ask for immunity for things that he has not done or that he plans to do in the future.

[AngryCarl]

Why use one spurious legal argument when you could use two? I hope Trump's legal team got paid in advance.

[jshm2]

Best he wishes he pardoned himself before all those others idiots he pardoned!

[goaded]

He didn't pardon legislators who were in on it with him; that probably gives him leverage over them ("if I go down, so do you").

[strateguy632]

pardon is after found guilty but trump is innocent [until proven] same as anyone. the timing shows it is all false accusations.

[goaded]

@strateguy632 Then why were lawmakers asking him for pardons?

[OddBeMe]

@goaded because they didn’t know you had to admit guilt for a pardon.

[Twalli]

It's interesting because he's claiming he didn't do it and that he was exercising his job as president while doing it. So it like "I didn't do it, but when I did it it was part of my job as POTUS".

[Sevenpointfive]

you are so stupid sometimes. are you an ex-wife. it figures

[ProbablyClueless]

No one likes having their time wasted 🤷🏽‍♂️

[DextroShade]

Biden and his cronies are trying to lock him up because they know he's going to win the next election. This is some 3rd world dictator shit.

[Notherndude84]

Biden has nothing to do with it. It’s called being held accountable for crimes. As a “law and order” republican I think you should appreciate that justice matters. If he’s innocent he has nothing to worry about right?

[DextroShade]

@Notherndude84 the timing is too suspicious, if this was really about justice they could have done it in 2021 or in 2025. Actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant for these kangaroo courts anyway, just look at what happened to Ross Ulbricht.

[Notherndude84]

The DOJ has their priorities, and I believe convicting a president for criminal activity is a precedent setting legal action. In other words it’s a slow methodical process because it will determine outcomes for similar cases in the future. I don’t believe courts in America are Kangaroo, Republicans appointed many of the judges that are involved in the trials he’s faced or will face.

If you break the law even as a president you should be held accountable if found guilty. If it keeps him off the ballot he only has himself to blame. It’s not Democrats, George Soros or Jewish space lasers or deep state conspiracy it’s him Donald Trump who’s to blame.

[DextroShade]

@Notherndude84 Trump wasn't a priority for Biden's DOJ until his approval ratings tanked and he realized ge wouldn't beat Trump this year.

[Notherndude84]

I would disagree on that, I actually think Merrick Garland is kinda useless, that’s why tings didn’t happen right away. Though I think Republicans would be equally angry with rushed legal action

[Twalli]

I'm not sure you can charge a sitting president with a crime.

[goaded]

@Twalli Nobody's sure. But if SCOTUS decides that one can't, a future president could simply lock them all up and not be held to the law. That sounds like suicide.

@notherndude84 You know they'd be making the same arguments as the second impeachment. "Why didn't you hold an investigation?" - WE WERE THE WITNESSES!

[Twalli]

@goaded What we do know is that a person can run, and therefore be elected while incarcerated. Of course, the VP may be the one running the country as POTUS is unable to carry out his duties.