Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

Garmel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, unlike you I admit I am wrong on that. There has to be some kind of negligence from the company to warrant a conviction on something like that. Every CEO of every major company would be in prison if it worked like you think it does. I say again that if there is a case for prosecuting Hillary I support it 100%. There is nothing the FBI said or did that prevented Trump or prevents Trump now from having his DoJ prosecute. So your beef is with Trump for protecting Hillary. Much like you believe Trump would be prosecuted by the Dems if they had any chance to do so applies the same with Republicans and Hillary.

I have never supported the immunity deal for the IT guy. I was against it then and still am. I know they generally do a proffer meeting to see what info they have to offer but its not unheard of to give a deal in exchange for truthful testimony. Trumps people like Flynn were offered sweetheart plea deals with no jail time for truthful testimony that did not require him to provide anything incriminating. Works out to the same thing. Except he then kept telling provable lies.

And I repeat for the last time, you should be mad at Trump if you think Hillary should be charged. In factt you people have a golden oppurtunity to prosecute Bill Barr for perjury. He said under oath Trump never asked, insinuated or implied to him personally to prosecute any specific person. Trump says he told Barr to prosecute Hillary and he said no. Your side hates Barr now so why is he being protected? The answer is because Trump is full of ****. If he asked anyone it would have been his first AG session unless he somehow waited 2 years to tell his AG to proseccute.
 
Garmel said:
I would be for locking him up if you bring real evidence charges against him and not a bunch of convoluted legal theory.
Click to expand...

Thats why we have the trial. The NY cases are so minor I barely care since theres no expectation of actual prison time for it. The DC case does have some unsettled legal theory to it that I cant guarantee he would be convicted of but the fake elector scheme where they purposely didnt include a waiver that they were just in case the results were overturned by the courts he is dead to rights. Same for the RICO case and documents case. Even if he somehow got off on the documents part he is dead to rights on the obstruction charge. You maasde a big deal about Hillary and the subpoena but they actually have proof of Trump orchestrating a plot to obstruct a subpoena and you defend it.
 
Garmel said:
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 FILE CHARGES!

Jesus ****ing Christ, man.
Click to expand...

Nothing requires a victim to file charges. Maybe you can tell me which victim filed charges on Bannon for his fraud case. Beyond that the DoJ under Trump could file charges if for some reason Durham could not.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Nothing requires a victim to file charges. Maybe you can tell me which victim filed charges on Bannon for his fraud case. Beyond that the DoJ under Trump could file charges if for some reason Durham could not.
Click to expand...

*sigh*



Yes, you have to file charges against an individual on most crimes involving your personal being with rare exceptions.

If you defraud the government like Bannon supposedly did the state charges you.

See the difference?
 
cajunrevenge said:
Thats why we have the trial. The NY cases are so minor I barely care since theres no expectation of actual prison time for it. The DC case does have some unsettled legal theory to it that I cant guarantee he would be convicted of but the fake elector scheme where they purposely didnt include a waiver that they were just in case the results were overturned by the courts he is dead to rights. Same for the RICO case and documents case. Even if he somehow got off on the documents part he is dead to rights on the obstruction charge. You maasde a big deal about Hillary and the subpoena but they actually have proof of Trump orchestrating a plot to obstruct a subpoena and you defend it.
Click to expand...

Trump and his people claim they were cooperating with the government and the subpoena. We know for a fact they were sending stuff back to the government. The "hiding" stuff has not been proven.

Besides, the courts would have gone in Trump's favor eventually because by law and legal precedent those are his documents.
 
Garmel said:
*sigh*

Yes, you have to file charges against an individual on most crimes involving your personal being with rare exceptions.

If you defraud the government like Bannon supposedly did the state charges you.

See the difference?
Click to expand...

Care to cite anything that says crimes require a victim to press charges? Bannon didnt defraud the government he defrauded the donors by claiming 100% of donations go to building the wall. These are generally Trump supporters donating so I doubt any of them wanted him prosecuted.
 
Garmel said:
Trump and his people claim they were cooperating with the government and the subpoena. We know for a fact they were sending stuff back to the government. The "hiding" stuff has not been proven.

Besides, the courts would have gone in Trump's favor eventually because by law and legal precedent those are his documents.
Click to expand...

I dont have the time to go over it now but they have so much evidence. His own lawyers notes quote him as saying "Well, what if we, what happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?" and "Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?".

And to top it off the dude is literally on audio saying "Hey look at these highly classified documents I have here, look at them, I could declassify them if I was still president". Paraphrasing there but you can even here him flipping through the pages. If that isnt proof enough what is. This is like if a Joe Biden audio existed where he said "Oh you want me to change this policy and you will give me money for it? Well thats corrupt as hell but I will take your bribe and do that thing you asked".
 
While the decision to pursue charges ultimately rests with the prosecutor

From your source. You mistake being willing to cooperate with the prosecutor with pressing charges. Prosecutions where the victim refuses to cooperate are difficult. And I dont know what to say if you get your legal knowledge from cop shows on TV.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I dont have the time to go over it now but they have so much evidence. His own lawyers notes quote him as saying "Well, what if we, what happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?" and "Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?".

And to top it off the dude is literally on audio saying "Hey look at these highly classified documents I have here, look at them, I could declassify them if I was still president". Paraphrasing there but you can even here him flipping through the pages. If that isnt proof enough what is. This is like if a Joe Biden audio existed where he said "Oh you want me to change this policy and you will give me money for it? Well thats corrupt as hell but I will take your bribe and do that thing you asked".
Click to expand...

General Milley released info on this exact classified info to the New York Times a week earlier. The law states that if the person who released the info to the public initially isn't prosecuted subsequent people who release the same info can't be prosecuted. There's a legal term for this but I can't remember what it's called.

The document was supposedly in the boxes he took to Mar-a-Lago. Trump was wrong about it being classified and was automatically declassified.

Trump himself said he actually had a newspaper in his hands. If you listen to the audio the people in the room were laughing every time he said something about "this classified document". There's more to this than we know because there's no video.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cajunrevenge said:
While the decision to pursue charges ultimately rests with the prosecutor

From your source. You mistake being willing to cooperate with the prosecutor with pressing charges. Prosecutions where the victim refuses to cooperate are difficult. And I dont know what to say if you get your legal knowledge from cop shows on TV.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you don't press charges nothing will be done. You have to press charges or the prosecutors won't do anything.

Let me add it can depend on the state.

Domestic violence can be an exception as well.

Did Hillary notify any authorities she was defrauded? If she didn't how is a prosecutor like Durham supposed to know it happened?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sturg33 said:
Enlighten me
Click to expand...

There was a coordinated OP on X launched by the RDS campiagn whereby 'influencers' (most instances bots) tried to shape opinion not on true underlying belief but on what they were being paid to say.

Its ok to admit this and that you may have been slightly 'energized' by these obviously inorganic conversations.
 
thethe said:
There was a coordinated OP on X launched by the RDS campiagn whereby 'influencers' (most instances bots) tried to shape opinion not on true underlying belief but on what they were being paid to say.

Its ok to admit this and that you may have been slightly 'energized' by these obviously inorganic conversations.
Click to expand...

Oh thank you.

Sp there were RDS supporters who would post things to support RDS, like there were Trump supporters who were paid to post things to support Trump.

Whoa! Mind blown
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top