Originally posted by Surturwhat I meant is that it's an inevitable fact that charging someone with a crime may affect their life/job/etc and yet they're not yet proven guilty cause in a good justice system they have a right to a fair trial
And you say it's part of the justice system, but if the DOJ has a standing policy you don't indict a sitting president...well, you get that makes it part of the system too, yes?
It's by no means inevitable that we have to grant the president immunity.... It's just a seemingly arbitrary law which I'm calling in to question what the proper reasoning for it is and have yet to receive a good answer... Not that said good answer doesn't exist
Originally posted by mike brown👆
what I meant is that it's an inevitable fact that charging someone with a crime may affect their life/job/etc and yet they're not yet proven guilty cause in a good justice system they have a right to a fair trialIt's by no means inevitable that we have to grant the president immunity.... It's just a seemingly arbitrary law which I'm calling in to question what the proper reasoning for it is and have yet to receive a good answer... Not that said good answer doesn't exist
Originally posted by Silent Masteruh... No. He's not ruling on the case cause he thinks the timing is inappropriate. He's not withholding any of the facts/evidence. That's not even close to obstruction... If it were then Trump would be beyond guilty of obstruction at this point.
If he refuses to answer whether or not proof of a crime exists, doesn't that mean he's guilty of obstruction of justice and should then be charged with a crime?
Originally posted by mike brown
uh... No. He's not ruling on the case cause he thinks the timing is inappropriate. He's not withholding any of the facts/evidence. That's not even close to obstruction... If it were then Trump would be beyond guilty of obstruction at this point.
If he's not withholding any of the evidence, then why don't we know if there is enough evidence to bring a case?
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So since I don't recognize Mikey here... I will just assume He is a sock which is the current trend.But Which if our Loony Lefty Trump Haters Is He?
Robbie?
[/B]
Bashy?
Pooty
Quancherino?
Originally posted by mike brown
eat a dick
Hmmm I am going to lean towards Bashy or Stringer after that comment. Its on their level.
Originally posted by Silent MasterI'm not a lawyer so I don't honestly know if there is or not... Since the guy in charge of the investigation declined to rule on it that basically leaves it up in the air... Meaning when he's out of office another prosecutor could potentially take up the case.. or not.
If he's not withholding any of the evidence, then why don't we know if there is enough evidence to bring a case?
Originally posted by Flyattractorit's sad this place is so dead you never see new blood... But I'm not anyone you have a history with, green text. I was red g jacks, afro cheese, reggie_jax, and possibly a few other names you don't remember.
[b]Hmmm I am going to lean towards Bashy or Stringer after that comment. Its on their level. [/B]
Originally posted by mike brown
I'm not a lawyer so I don't honestly know if there is or not... Since the guy in charge of the investigation declined to rule on it that basically leaves it up in the air... Meaning when he's out of office another prosecutor could potentially take up the case.. or not.
Congress and the government is full of lawyers, so why aren't any of them going "here is the proof"?