Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

cajunrevenge said:
That's because you don't know what facts are. Like it's a fat that Donald Trump is a convicted felon. It's a fact that no significant amount of fraud was found in 2020. It's a fact that Trump org was convicted of a pattern and practice of fraud. It's also a fact Trump won in 2024. You inject your feelings into facts and get mad when people call you out on it. You are free to believe lizard people run the world all you want but with no actual evidence you got nothing to stand on.
Click to expand...

Do you realize with your "facts" every single business owner could wipe their drives after being subpoenaed, blame it on an employee and then walk? There's this concept of "respondeat superior" that you need to read up on.

The "fraud" case will be overturned. Still shocking to me that people believe this a legit case. I will enjoy the excuses you will come up with with this is dismissed.

Same with the NY criminal case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Garmel said:
Do you realize with your "facts" every single business owner could wipe their drives after being subpoenaed, blame it on an employee and then walk? There's this concept of "respondeat superior" that you need to read up on.

The "fraud" case will be overturned. Still shocking to me that people believe this a legit case. I will enjoy the excuses you will come up with with this is dismissed.

Same with the NY criminal case.
Click to expand...

He does not
 
Tapate50 said:
He does not
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Sussman case I argued with him.

Me: Sussman lied to the FBI saying that he represented no one and Durham in court showed that Sussman billed Clinton for that meeting with the FBI.

Cajun: Sussman defrauded Clinton!

Me: *facepalm*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sturg33 said:
Hopefully Trump can get us back to peak America before Civil rights legislation started dividing us
Click to expand...

No One:

Racists:
rick-james-dave-chappelle.gif
 
Garmel said:
Do you realize with your "facts" every single business owner could wipe their drives after being subpoenaed, blame it on an employee and then walk? There's this concept of "respondeat superior" that you need to read up on.

The "fraud" case will be overturned. Still shocking to me that people believe this a legit case. I will enjoy the excuses you will come up with with this is dismissed.

Same with the NY criminal case.
Click to expand...

That only works if you have an employee willing to take the fall. They gave him immunity to try to get the IT guy to flip on her because they only cared about "getting" Hillary. The IT guy should have been prosecuted but it was a politically motivated investigation meant to hurt one candidate during the election. I thought you people were against the FBI doing that kind of thing. Polling at the time suggests the FBI's actions in giving the memo about reopening the investigation to a partisan like Devin Nunez who promptly leaked it to the media was the difference maker in the election. Comey justified this by saying if he didnt do it someone else would have because the NY office was very ant-Hillary. And despite having legitimate complaints Hillary went out there and conceded with probably the best speech of her career. Even little thethe praised her concession speech. Everything you people claim the FBI did to Trump they did to Hillary first. Which is why your opinion is a joke. The Clintons were the most investigated people on the planet and I sure as hell think they are guilty of crimes much like I do Trump. Yet you people try to portray me as some biased liberal because you need to justify why I dont agree with you. I railed against Hillary for years here when I treat Trump the same way you people lose your minds.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine of tort law which is civil. If it worked like you claim Trump would have been indicted for the crimes Weaselberg was convicted of. You use the argument that if they have even the slighest basis for indicting Trump they would have done it so explain to me why they didnt indict Trump for what Weaselberg did.

And thank you again for proving you dont know the difference between a fact and an opinion. I think the appeals court would have overturned Judge Cannon's reason for dismissing the documents case but until then its a fact it was dismissed because the appointment of the special counsel was ruled improper. I dont insert my feelings into this like you do.
 
Garmel said:
Reminds me of the Sussman case I argued with him.

Me: Sussman lied to the FBI saying that he represented no one and Durham in court showed that Sussman billed Clinton for that meeting with the FBI.

Cajun: Sussman defrauded Clinton!

Me: *facepalm*
Click to expand...

Sussman - "hey I think we should take this data to the FBI so they can vet it to see if it is what we think it is"

Clinton - "no dont do that the FBI arent friendly to us and wont even investigate, give it to the media they will vet it for us"

Again, how can you represent someone when he is doing specifically what he was told not to do. Beyond that even if he was his only crime would have been lying to the FBI which Trump pardoned several of his own people for. And even those that were prosecuted they did so as leverage to get them to cooperate with their investigations. It was then only after they kept lying after taking plea deals in exchange for telling the truth that they sought jail time for them. I keep telling you that your side can try political prosecutions but just dont be mad when it doesnt work out how you want. I dont know why you get mad at me about it.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Sussman - "hey I think we should take this data to the FBI so they can vet it to see if it is what we think it is"

Clinton - "no dont do that the FBI arent friendly to us and wont even investigate, give it to the media they will vet it for us"

Again, how can you represent someone when he is doing specifically what he was told not to do. Beyond that even if he was his only crime would have been lying to the FBI which Trump pardoned several of his own people for. And even those that were prosecuted they did so as leverage to get them to cooperate with their investigations. It was then only after they kept lying after taking plea deals in exchange for telling the truth that they sought jail time for them. I keep telling you that your side can try political prosecutions but just dont be mad when it doesnt work out how you want. I dont know why you get mad at me about it.
Click to expand...

When was Sussman told directly not to go to the FBI? There was talk in some e-mails about not going to the FBI but obviously something changed.

He went to the FBI and billed Clinton and paid by her. If she had protested the billing you possibly could have a point. Case closed.

You still can't figure out with all we've seen that the cases against Trump ARE the political prosecutions.

The reason why I'm irritated because I'm arguing with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cajunrevenge said:
That only works if you have an employee willing to take the fall. They gave him immunity to try to get the IT guy to flip on her because they only cared about "getting" Hillary. The IT guy should have been prosecuted but it was a politically motivated investigation meant to hurt one candidate during the election. I thought you people were against the FBI doing that kind of thing. Polling at the time suggests the FBI's actions in giving the memo about reopening the investigation to a partisan like Devin Nunez who promptly leaked it to the media was the difference maker in the election. Comey justified this by saying if he didnt do it someone else would have because the NY office was very ant-Hillary. And despite having legitimate complaints Hillary went out there and conceded with probably the best speech of her career. Even little thethe praised her concession speech. Everything you people claim the FBI did to Trump they did to Hillary first. Which is why your opinion is a joke. The Clintons were the most investigated people on the planet and I sure as hell think they are guilty of crimes much like I do Trump. Yet you people try to portray me as some biased liberal because you need to justify why I dont agree with you. I railed against Hillary for years here when I treat Trump the same way you people lose your minds.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine of tort law which is civil. If it worked like you claim Trump would have been indicted for the crimes Weaselberg was convicted of. You use the argument that if they have even the slighest basis for indicting Trump they would have done it so explain to me why they didnt indict Trump for what Weaselberg did.

And thank you again for proving you dont know the difference between a fact and an opinion. I think the appeals court would have overturned Judge Cannon's reason for dismissing the documents case but until then its a fact it was dismissed because the appointment of the special counsel was ruled improper. I dont insert my feelings into this like you do.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL!!!!

Once again you prove you don't know wtf you're talking about. Respondeat-superior is both criminal and civil.
https://jsberrylaw.com/blog/respondeat-superior-criminal-liability/

You still haven't figured out the problem with the story of giving immunity to the employee in this Clinton story have you?
Do I need to explain it to you? You only get immunity if you have useful info to give in which HE DIDN'T HAVE. He got immunity but didn't turn on his boss. What does that tell you?

With your legal reasoning an employee can always say that he didn't know about the subpoena and boom! What can law enforcement do?

Clinton isn't a victim of the FBI trying to get her. They let her delete her hard drive, let her have classified stuff move through her server and let a maid handle the server and nothing happened to her. As I said if you or i did that we'd be under the jail.
Do you some reading on why respondeat superior doesn't apply to Trump. I'm tired of wasting my time trying to explain things to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The discussion was in emails presented at trial. Sussman disagreed and went to the FBI. That Durham wasnt interested in pursuing charges for Sussman wrongfully billing the Clinton campaign just shows how political this was. They wanted something to support Trumps narrative about the Russia investigation and complained several times that the report wasnt ready before the election showing it was just about propaganda purposes.

Any investigation and prosecution of political figures is political. That in itself doesnt mean politicians shouldnt be prosecuted. Every investigation of the Clintons was political. That doesnt mean they werent justified or shouldnt have happened. Hunter Biden's prosecution is 100% political but it should happen and he should go to prison. Republicans spent 6 years investigating Joe trying to find something they prosecute him for and theres nothing wrong with that. Thats politics. Thats how this works. Neither side can be trusted to investigate themselves. Its been this way for 100 years then all of a sudden Trump comes along and all of a sudden its a red line to investigate Trump. You excrete all this BS about how the investigations are this or that because he, so far, appears to have gotten away with it but your side did all the same to Biden but you view the Trump investigations as illegitimate and the Biden ones legitimate. Thats just absurd. I think both should be heavily investigated by people who dont support them. Thats why I say I am neutral. I hate Joe Biden. I hope they actually do find something to lock his ass up for. You for whatever reason think Trump should be above being investigated and prosecuted. I think no one should be above the law.
 
You can't bill your boss, have her pay it and then say she had no part of this. lol

Once again I'll remind you that Durham can't charge Sussman for defrauding Clinton BECAUSE SHE DID NOT PRESS CHARGES!

Jesus ****ing Christ, man.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top