Trump wants to shield Biden from prosecution after he leaves office. - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] KBiker (1252) 9 months ago

More Trump ridiculousity. As much as I wish Trump to be behind bars, I'm hoping he doesn't get away with this. Though given all The Donald's toadies and lackeys in Congress, he just might.

reply

[–] blue1981 (8180) 9 months ago

I think Joe Biden will get what's coming to him when his Dementia gets progressively worse. I Agee with this sentiment as the democrats and their Attorney Generals in blue states have broke precedent by running on the idea of prosecuting Trump for nonexistent crimes. Any wrongdoing should only be investigated at the federal level. If some type of legislation isn't passed what kind of candidates will step up to be politicians when they know opposing lawmakers and prosecutors will do anything to take them down.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

[–] blue1981 (6659) 9 hours ago
I Agee with this sentiment as the democrats and their Attorney Generals in blue states have broke precedent by running on the idea of prosecuting Trump for nonexistent crimes.

Which nonexistent crimes are you talking about? The statutes against fraud and mishandling classified documents are real. Trump is far from the first to be indicted for violating them.

The state has a voice recording of Trump demanding more votes be found, this is a confession on tape to a crime.

Every other politician has been able to do their job (or get paid for it) without the immunity that Trump is demanding. Why is Trump being such a pussy?

reply

[–] blue1981 (8180) 9 months ago

The votes were continuously being counted but just saying "find the votes" doesn't mean anything. The civil case regarding his real estate was an imaginary crime. The federal courts already said there was no wrong doing in the Brag case but it moved forward anyway. Also Trump won't pay one cent that ugly skirt Jean Caroll.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

[–] blue1981 (6662) 2 hours ago
The votes were continuously being counted but just saying "find the votes" doesn't mean anything. The civil case regarding his real estate was an imaginary crime. The federal courts already said there was no wrong doing in the Brag case but it moved forward anyway. Also Trump won't pay one cent that ugly skirt Jean Caroll.

Trump demanded that the Georgia SoS find a specific number of votes so that he could win. He did not want votes counted, he wanted votes to be "found".

Which civil case? This one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the_Trump_Organization

Trump actually lied about the worth of some of his holdings. Are you really going to tell us that a 11,000 sq ft apartment is the same as a 30,000 sq ft apartment? That is the kind of stupid stuff that Trump got caught doing. Why are you claiming that fraud is an imaginary crime? Do you think the people reading your posts don't know what fraud means?

Which Brag case? The case with Alvin Bragg? This one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York

Just because one DOJ prosecutor does not move on a case does not mean there was no wrong doing. What evidence do you have that says the DOJ thought there was "no wrong doing"? Nothing of course.

Trump thought Jean Carroll was so attractive that he confused her for his 2nd wife, Marla Maples. Trump has already paid a bond of over $80 million. It will go to Carroll when Trump loses his appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

A woman like Carroll, was so much "Trump's type", he married a woman that looked enough like her that he could not tell them apart. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-of-trump-confusing-e-jean-carroll-ex-wife-marla-maples-lawsuit-trial/

reply

[–] luvthepros (909) 9 months ago

blue1981 (6736) 8 days ago SAID>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think Joe Biden will get what's coming to him when his Dementia gets progressively worse. I Agree with this sentiment as the democrats and their Attorney Generals in blue states have broke precedent by running on the idea of prosecuting Trump for nonexistent crimes. Any wrongdoing should only be investigated at the federal level. If some type of legislation isn't passed what kind of candidates will step up to be politicians when they know opposing lawmakers and prosecutors will do anything to take them down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Trump's NONEXISTENT CRIMES? You are not paying attention.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7752) 9 months ago

Trump is such an idiot. He has to go

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

Biden is already a corpse. What is there to shield?

reply

[–] blue1981 (8180) 9 months ago

This has got nothing to do with Biden but more to do with the office. It's about stopping any future frivolous prosecution at the state level or else no one will step to be President in the future.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

Yes, I know, it’s about not setting a precedent similar to what they have done with LEOs.

That’s another reason why their hiring rates are low and the bar has been lowered.

Biden is still a corpse so he's not going to be shielded from anything, regardless.

reply

[–] blue1981 (8180) 9 months ago

I think Biden's name was mentioned in the title for attention but it's got nothing to do with him.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

The OP is using Biden as a deflective excuse. See his question below.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

It has everything to do with Biden. Biden will be a former president in 2025. If Trump gets Congress to pass a law shielding former presidents from prosecution, it will most likely not exempt Biden, nor will it only shield the GOP.

Do you think Biden would not benefit from a law that shields former presidents from prosecution? Biden would not have to worry about anyone reviving the stolen documents case against him if Trump gets his way.

reply

[–] Drusilla (565) 9 months ago

All this has to do with is the fact that Democrats hate Republicans and vice versa.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

So Biden has done nothing wrong in your opinion?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

How would you punish a dead horse?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

I couldn't. What dead horse are you referring to?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Yeah.
The clue is: he's the one , out of the two of them , not charged with a crime(s) or sitting in court all day.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

Biden has done plenty of things that are wrong.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

criminal things?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

You recall his (and Pence) mishandling of classified records? Had I done that while in the Navy, I would have been thrown in jail to await trial. They would not have simply asked for me to return them.

These politicians simply get too much in the way of preferential treatment. They need to be held to the same standard as the rest of us, or even a higher standard considering the information they have access to.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

You know, the practice of going after ex-leaders with criminal charges, was one of the major motives that led to teh end of hte Roman Republic.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

Oh, who cares? You need to live in the present.

We need to hold our leader accountable for their actions. If we don't, then it is the beginning of the end for us too.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

So, you are against the very idea of learning from history?

fascinating.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

I have learned. Which leaders are you talking about specifically?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

in history I was thinking of the "first trimuverate", today I was think actually of near future leaders who fear to step down, for fear of being arrested on trumped up charges by their enemies, so they feel they have no choice but to fight.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

Which of our leaders are on trumped up charges?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

i see that you want to avoid my point, by chaning the subject to something that gives you the chance to just spam negative talking points about someone you hate.

By "near future" I actually was referring to FUTURE political leaders.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

Why would you think that near future leaders have something to worry about just because we are holding current or former leaders accountable?

Surely your future leaders will learn that they are not immune from justice and will behave in a lawful manner?

Explain how this is a bad thing.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Future leaders won't care about your... spin, they will see that once they are out of power that their enemies who take over, will then come after then with the power of the state.

Political pesecutions, political prosecutions, political oppression, political prisoners.

Thus, the very idea of a peaceful transfer of power, becomes a fools game.

That is what you are doing right now, with this drive to make Trump into a political prisoner.

You are actually attacking the concerp of peaceful transfer of power.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

Quite the crystal ball you have there. You need to polish that turd better so you can see more clear.

Trump is a common conman and fraudster. Stop putting that shitstain on a pedestal.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Crystal ball? This is not looking forward and guessing, it is looking BACK and learning from history.

If you make men afraid to give up power, they will be afraid to give up power.

That is the lesson of the Fall of the Roman Republic. Well, one of them anyways.

Trump? This is not about Trump, this is about the dems bad behavior and possible consequences.

I am constantly asking liberals, what do you think the REACTION from the other side, will be, to your most recent escalation.

Universially, all I get back is confusion. They are unable to think.

I know that you define yourself as "not a lib", so, maybe YOU are able to think of this.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

[–] Corbell (9086) 9 hours ago
Future leaders won't care about your... spin, they will see that once they are out of power that their enemies who take over, will then come after then with the power of the state.
[–] Corbell (9086) an hour ago
Crystal ball? This is not looking forward and guessing, it is looking BACK and learning from history.

You were telling me about future leaders needing protection nine hours ago. Try to keep up.

We need to make sure men are afraid to not give up power. What do you think would have happened if trump refused to leave the White House after Biden was sworn in? Biden would have most likely ordered the military to go in and take him into custody along with any Secret Service who disobeyed orders.

Go ahead and call this kind of action illegal, but this is the kind of immunity that Trump wants the president to enjoy.

What escalations are you talking about? Can you be specific?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

You can play dumb if you like. That will be irrelevant.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Playing dumb equals someone not agreeing with you. You have such strong intellect.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Grift. THat was not what I said, nor meant.

So, take your shit talk, and go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Can anyone disagree with you and it be ok? Answer me that. I've never once seen you disagree with anyone in a civil manner.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Actually you have never seen anyone disagree with ME in a civil manner.

My civility is set by the amount of civility they show me.

So, if all you see is me calling people out of their retarded assholeness, that is because they are being retarded assholes.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

I was civil with you up above even though you reversed course in nine hours without explanation. Then you claimed I was playing dumb.

Reciprocity is not one of your strong points.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Isn't it funny how he pretends like he is some type of saint?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

Kind of funny in a "baby seal getting hit on the head" kind of way. But after a while it is just sad.

He is a rather sad example of a person who uses personal attacks in a vain attempt at looking strong. Does not work on the internet.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

The words from Ranb says otherwise. It's not just me you are rude to. He was perfectly civil with you and you acted like an asshole.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

I'm citing history and he's talking about "crystal balls"?

That was playing dumb.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

You said what future leaders will see and do. That's what he was referring to about crystal ball. You don't know the future, you can only guess what it will behold. By the way your boy was found guilty of 34 felonies. Do you have excuses for all 34 of them? If so let's hear it.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Which was stupid, considering the citing of history.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Not when you commented on what the future would be also. You did that and you got called on it. So what do you think of Trump being found guilty? You got excuses for all 34 of the charges?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

You learn from the past, and apply that to the future.

That you are pretending to not get that, is you playing stupid.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Yes which is why it's funny you don't want to talk about past racism or injustices. Oh wait you want to do that when you feel it suits your narrative.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

So, to be clear, you're dropping your line of defense, where you pretend to be too stupid to undestand the concept of learning from history?

Because, you were supporting that line of defense, and I responded seriously and honestly and your response to that, was to try to change the subject and derail the thread.

How about you have some moral courage and admit that my point about learning from history is valid? And address teh point I made, rather than just throwing shit at the wall like a retarded fucking monkey?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

No because you said you could determine the future. Your examples you brought up were poor examples.

Let's stay on topic here. So going forward how is arresting Trump going to affect the future?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Looking at past examples where leaders became afraid to give up power, becasue their enemies would use the legal system against them once they were out of office, it encourage the leaders to remain in office by any and all means.

And thus ending the process of peaceful transfer of power.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

So then all politicians should be exempt from the law because of this?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Not what I said.

Do you have a serious reply or are you just a troll boi?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

I'm not playing dumb. You cannot settle on what your argument is in this thread in the space of nine hours.

Are you playing dumb by not knowig what specific means? I'm not impressed.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

If you arrest the opposition leader and put him in jail for opposing your side,

What do you think that the republicans will do in response to that escalation?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

"The repubicans" That is a broad term. Which republicans? The GOP in Congress? The bat-sh*t crazy ones that climbed the Captitol walls instead of using the stairs and smeared their feces inside? Are you speaking of the kind that run down peaceful demonstrators with their cars?

Tell me exactly which republicans you're speaking of and I will hazard a guess. I think the kind of republicans that plead for mercy in court after they got caught bragging on social media about their exploits during the riot will do nothing.

Which opposition leader was put in jail for opposing the other side? Trump was found guilty of various fraud charges, not found guilty of opposing democrats.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

All of them. All of them will see this and adjust their behavior in response to your side's escalation.

Trump for one. He has been convinced of serious "crimes" in a sham trial, common tactics in oppressive banana republics or marxist regimes.

That your side may or may not have filled out the forms correctly and went though the motions properly, is irrelevant.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

The ones in prison will not adjust.

You really think the feces-throwing-monkey-stupid republicans will be capable of change? I don't

How do you think Trump will change? So far he has not. He has been talking and posting unhinged bat-crap crazy stuff for weeks now, and did not change after his conviction.

My side? The side of law and order? The side of justice? Why is justice irrelevant?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. Really? I've always understood that prison often radicalized politically active people. Not to mention the family and friends of the political prisoners. Nothing like seeing someone you know is a good person, serving time for nothing or next to nothing to convince someone that the system is completely illegitimate and needs to come down.

2. Trump? You destroy Trump with this, and you make him a martyr.

3. Future republican leaders will know that they are in for a life and death stuggle with no rules. And they will play accordingly.

4. YOur side is the side of Tyranny.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

So even after they post about their crimes and brag about the bad things they did, you still think they are a good person? I think you need to re-think your life and the decisions you make.

If Trump is destroyed, politically, then he is no longer a threat to our freedom. I could not care less if he is a martyr in the eyes of his feces throwing monkey cult members.

Future GOP leaders who openly violate the law will know they're in a struggle to stay out of jail. Perhaps they will play in a lawful manner.

I am on the side of law and order.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. Their crime was to delay a formality by a few hours. Yes, they are still good people. Good people that were very angry. Prison is not likely to make them less angry. Do you want to have more political violence in the future?

2. Trump's base is working class and middle class whites. That used to be, that still is the backbone of this country. Your desire to marginalize US, is not going to go well. Trump might be our leader right now, but WE are the problem, not him. WE will still be here, no matter what happens to him.

3. Future GOP leaders will know that the dems are fully willing to use the power of the state against them and arrest them on trumped up charges regardless of the law or their rights.

4. You are not on the side of law and order. You are on the side of oppression and injustice. Teh more you increase your oppression the more resistance you will breed.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

1. They are criminals, sucks to be them. Life is hard, it is harder when criminals are stupid.

2. I marginalize the criminal element as well as others. Trump is a huge problem. He is the leader of a cult that will have no problem violating the law and hurting people.

3. Future GOP leaders might know that, but that does not mean it is something real that they have to worry about. Trump was right when he said, "If they can do this to me, they can do it to you". If you violate the law like Trump did, then you might reap what you sow. Trump was not the first idiot to go down like this and he will not be the last.

4. Indicting law breaker and putting them on trial is justice, not oppression. Trump had every chance in the world to pay that hush money legally, but he decided to do it fraudulently. Trump was stupid. Then he included another stupid person in his plot.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. Technically. So What? We were discussing how this will cause them to "adjust". You seem to think that... what, they will just stay in prison... or somthing. I think it will likely radicalize them and those around them.

2. You calling US a cult is irrelevant. We are a huge percentage of the US demographics. We aren't going anywhere adn your desire to ignore our rights and intersts and oppress US, is going to continue to inflame politcial conflict in this country.

3. Your denial is irrelevant. THey will know it and that will be the basis of their actions. The game is life and death with no rules. We know that now.

4. Your support of the Lie is noted.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

1. Those idiots will be too chickensh*t to do much else later on.

2. It is entirely relevant. You are not going anywhere, but you will be largely irrelevant when your cult leader fades away and you have no other cult of personality to rally around.

3. What do you think their actions will be? Claim they are immune or entitled to violate the law like Trump said he was?

4. I have the law and a jury's decision on my side. You have Trump's lies on your side. You lose.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. Some yes. Others, no. Wishful thinking is not a plan.

2. Funny. When Bidne was justifying the imprisoning of hte 1/6 rioters he seemed to think that we were very dangerous. That is the justification for hte massive resources invested in tracking them all down. Was that a lie? If so, then what was the real reason for bringing the hammer down so hard?

3, I don't know. But they are not going to pretend that everything is just fine and let people like you arrest them and jail them for political reasons.

4. YOu have a sham trial and an illegitimate and oppressive government on your side.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

1. I'm not planning anything. Just guessing what will happen. I do have the means to defend myself against those kinds of people if they come crashing at my door.

2. The J6 rioters were only a small portion of the MAGA cult. They were the only ones with the backbone to put Trump's demented and doomed plan into action. The rest are sheep and of no threat at all.

3. I' a retired disabled old man. I'll not be arresting anyone.

4. Not a sham. Trump was so confident he would get a not guilty verdict that he back down from his promise to testify. Even one of the jurors who claimed they only got their news from X and Social Truth voted guilty.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. Sticking your head in the sand is a plan. Not a GOOD plan, but a plan.

2. So, we are dangerous when you are justifying bringing the hammer down and we are pussies when you pretend it will all work out fine. And you tell me you don't have a plan... lol.

3. Ooh, cool. YOu pretended to not undersand what "people like you" means. That's a tell that you know I am right.

4. Complete sham trial. You know, I know, EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Shit talk is shit talk.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

1. Standing by to defend myself is not sticking my head in the sand.

2. Even a pussy can be dangerous to him or her self. You were the only one using the word dangerous.

3. I understand what you're saying. You're trying to lump me in with a group of people and I'm not having it. You will have better luck using that on other people besides me.

4. Not a sham trial. Good luck finding a single sitting judge who agrees.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

The justification for the crackdown is that we are dangerous. But you think we are pussies.

Yet, you support the crackdowns.

That means in your own mind, you are punching down at people who are no threat and being a dick about it at the same time.

Why?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 9 months ago

When a person riots and trespasses, they need a crackdown.

Some of those rioters were violent. Get violent with me and you might get more than a punch.

That is why.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Many of them were NOT violent and Biden is still going after them like they are Public Enemy number one.

So, what is your REAL reason for supporting the crackdown?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Your logic is basically well others got away with it so Trump should to.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

I made a point and posted it publicly.

You are welcome to respond to it.

That bit where you restate my point, to the point of making a new point, ie YOUR point, and then ask me to defend YOUR point?

i respectfully decline your invitation to play.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

I summarized your point. Your inability to realize that is on you. So now let's try again
So Trump is innocent of all 34 crimes he was charged with?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

i have no doubt that he paid off the porn star to keep her mouth shut and did not list it as "whore hush money".

I also have no doubt that the statue of limitations ran out, and that they are NOT felonies.

I ALSO have no doubt that if Trump was not a political enemy of the Left, that he would never have been charged with this.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

And I have no doubt you would be fine with this if it was a Democrat.

So you believe all the crimes are not felonies?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. No, I don't think that I would. I respect the human rights of even people I don't like. That is the Traditional American position on human rights that conservatives support.

2. Correct. The crimes were misdemeanors folded into pretend felonies as a bullshit excuse to be able to charge Trump despire the statue of limitations.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

I don't believe that. You have shown to be ok with anything that demonizes democrats.

I am not sure I believe that either. It sounds like you have a conspiracy brain. People like you claimed the election was stolen before you looked at anything. The second Trump said it boom you ran with it. I have no doubt you will use that type of logic elsewhere.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. You don't believe that a traditional American conservative has a traditional American political position? LOL.

2. Sorry buddy. But too many "conspriracies" have turned out to be true for you to just say those words and dismiss the idea. YOu lose.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Lol no I do not. I think you support things only when it suits your narrative.

Nope you don't get to use that to support your bullshit. So you believe the sandy hook shooting conspiracy then? I can easily state that too many conspiracies have turned out to be bullshit to be taken seriously. You lose.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. It's very convenient for you to say that. My stated position is that I support human rights, for all humans.

2. The statue of limitations ran out. The justication for folding them into greater crimes, I have never heard until the dems needed it to get Trump. Calling the idea that they are politically motivated a "conspiracy" is like calling... well, it just isn't called for.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

No I go off what I see from you. You say that but we all know you support rights of conservatives and no one else.

No go back to what you said. You said too many conspiracies have been proven to be true. So I want a list of the average number of how often conspiracy theories are proven to be true. I have a feeling on average most are false. Your move.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1.We discussed quite a lot of poltical issues. Can you give a single example of that, to back up your claim?

2. Too much work. And I know that you don't really care about the answer you will just spout off your same shit anyways.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Anyone who asks someone to backup a claim is playing troll boi games.

Translation you have nothing. So yeah I will continue not putting faith in conspiracy theories. Remember how you told me an exception to the rule died not disprove it? Well this applies to your bullshit conspiracy theories. On average they are nonsense.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. No, You made a claim. If you can give me a good example of me being hypocritical I would admit it. That is the way I roll because I am not a troll boi like you.

2. Anyone operating in good faith at this time, would have noticed over the last several years, the pattern of claims being dismissed as "conspiracy theories" and then being found out to be true.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

And you made claims you wouldn't backup. Why should I backup mine when you don't?

Nope not what you said. You said too many have been proven to be true for you to just say that. This means on average they are true and not the exception. You were wrong.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. Because I am a good person while you are a leftard troll. Different treatement based on different behavior.

2. Now you are dodging my point by bogging the thread down in a retarded discussion of semantics. Very cowardly of you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Lol yeah nope. I see rules for thee but not for me.

Conspiracies are on average bullshit the point stands.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. I'm a person, you're a troll boi. Thatt's not my fault.

2. The statue of limitations ran out. The justication for folding them into greater crimes, I have never heard until the dems needed it to get Trump.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Nope you are trash.

I had heard about it long before this.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. No, I'm not. You give me an example I will respond seriously and honestly. YOU are the troll here, not me.

2. The statue of limitations ran out. The justication for folding them into greater crimes, I have never heard until the dems needed it to get Trump.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Once you backup a claim I will. You are not getting special treatment.

I did so...
.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. I back up claims all the time, just not to people who have proven themselvese to not be serious.

2. I have not. I haven't heard anyone else claiming that they have either.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Then same goes to me. You aren't worth proving it to.

Well you met me. I knew trump was trash years ago.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

1. I'm not going to ignore the difference between us.

2. We were not discussing your negative opinion of Trump. So, that was shit talk from you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

Neither will I. I never told someone to kill themselves, you did.

Correct we weren't. So your opinion and experience on not hearing about it is irrelevant.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

You're just spamming shit talk now.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1413) 9 months ago

No that's what you are doing. Keep deluding yourself though.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Many Many "ex leaders" have been quite rightly strung up from lampposts, although I dont think Trump is at that level

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

Biden, Obama, Bush and Hillary are at that level.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

if you say so

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

If your leaders are afraid to peacefully step down from power for fear that their enemies will arrest them, then they won't peacefully step down.

You are attacking the idea of the peaceful transfer of power.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Given that kind of power Trump would just say "Hey I've changed the rules , elections dont count anymore I'll just stay in power , Its ok I'm allowed to do this because I'm president and immune to everything"

... which is exactly what he did try to do.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

No, it's not. He tried to game the system, USING THE RULES.

You arrest him on bullshit charges and YOUR SIDE, is doing far worse than that.

Indeed, you already are. These trials are farces, and everyone in the world knows it.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

the current stormy one is yes

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

You don't get to throw a double handful of shit cases at him and hope that the one that actually sticks is the one that you think has some credibilty.

If he goes to jail, it will be seen by everyone as Biden having his political opposition leader arrested and jailed. Even if you disagree with it, Trump will be seen as a POLITICAL PRISONER.

How do you think that will effect this country moving forward? What do you think republcians will do in response? What do you think MAGA trump supporters will do in response?

Hell, what do you think future dems will do, now that the precedence has been set?

reply

[–] luvthepros (909) 9 months ago

Corbell (9122) 2 days ago SAID>>>>>>>>>>>>

"You don't get to throw a double handful of shit cases at him and hope that the one that actually sticks is the one that you think has some credibilty.

If he goes to jail, it will be seen by everyone as Biden having his political opposition leader arrested and jailed. Even if you disagree with it, Trump will be seen as a POLITICAL PRISONER.

How do you think that will effect this country moving forward? What do you think Republicans will do in response? What do you think MAGA trump supporters will do in response?

Hell, what do you think future dems will do, now that the precedence has been set?"
============================================

Trump broke the NY State law. He broke the law 34 times and he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Trump is a convicted felon. I can see you have difficulty dealing with that fact.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

The statue of limitations had run out. They were misdemeanors.

That he was still charged, is a massive miscarriage of justice and the law.

reply

[–] javie (2225) 9 months ago

A Crazt car nearly hit me. But it's OK it didn't actually hit me.

reply