Georgia Indictment

a reply to: SourGrapes

Has anyone brought up the timing of all 4 of these separate slates of charges?


Guess it's just a big coincidence....

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

I wanted to know why, in your opinion, should those parties have been granted the right to initiate a lawsuit without standing.

They brought cases before the date of the election,

That may be one reason among many.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

I wanted to know why, in your opinion, should those parties have been granted the right to initiate a lawsuit without standing.

They brought cases before the date of the election,

That may be one reason among many.

How on earth did you omit my short and simple reply to only include an even shorter and nonsensical quote and response?

Full quote:

If you followed the cases you'd realize why. Since you're not citing any specific case, I'll be overly broad. They brought cases before the date of the election, denied for standing or latches. Brought them after, same thing.

So the question actually is, when is the right time because before and after were not correct in the courts view?

Next question is where do they have standing if not in their own state and not in the supreme court.?

It's almost like you're being intentionally dishonest...

Which of course is par for the course where you are concerned.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

The fact that Trump didn't go through any of the White House counsels and instead did all of this through his personal lawyers is going to make it very hard to claim he was acting as President.

He was still POTUS, at the time.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Fani should be disbarred.

Leave Al-Jazeera out of this partisan crap with your better talking-points?

That's my favorite good oligarchy behind another hot mess!

a reply to: JinMI

Well all of the investigations started around the same time. So why is it surprising they would be going to trial around the same time?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Well all of the investigations started around the same time. So why is it surprising they would be going to trial around the same time?

The NY case is the exception.

Yet there are 30 some counts in GA, FL and NY while only 4 in DC.

More coincidence?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

I wanted to know why, in your opinion, should those parties have been granted the right to initiate a lawsuit without standing.

They brought cases before the date of the election,

That may be one reason among many.

So the question actually is, when is the right time because before and after were not correct in the courts view?

Because it doesn’t matter what you think the question actually is, the law is the law.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Nixon was still POTUS when he committed his crimes. If it wasn't for Ford's pardon he would've been indicted.

a reply to: 3000Hard

Because it doesn’t matter what you think the question actually is, the law is the law.

Questions. There is more than one.

Those are the legal questions under the um..."law."

Do you happen to have an answer?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SourGrapes

Nixon was still POTUS when he committed his crimes. If it wasn't for Ford's pardon he would've been indicted.

Another Constitutional question.

If one is impeached yet not found guilty, can then they be prosecuted later in a double jeopardy type scenario?

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law./ex]

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Because it doesn’t matter what you think the question actually is, the law is the law.

Questions. There is more than one.

Those are the legal questions under the um..."law."

Do you happen to have an answer?

Ok the answer is those plaintiffs should make sure they don’t bring forth lawsuits that would be considered meritless, hearsay, frivolous, and lacking evidence.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Because it doesn’t matter what you think the question actually is, the law is the law.

Questions. There is more than one.

Those are the legal questions under the um..."law."

Do you happen to have an answer?

Ok the answer is those plaintiffs should make sure they don’t bring forth lawsuits that would be considered meritless, hearsay, frivolous, and lacking evidence.

I'm specifically speaking on the standing issue since, as I stated, you didn't cite a specific case.

Speaking of frivolous, how many current charges are pending against the former POTUS?

Can you even name one analog to this in history?

a reply to: JinMI

Yes. It clearly states that Impeachment can only remove someone from office. It is not a criminal proceeding.

a reply to: Threadbare

About that bolded portion........

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Because it doesn’t matter what you think the question actually is, the law is the law.

Questions. There is more than one.

Those are the legal questions under the um..."law."

Do you happen to have an answer?

Ok the answer is those plaintiffs should make sure they don’t bring forth lawsuits that would be considered meritless, hearsay, frivolous, and lacking evidence.

Can you even name one analog to this in history?

Loads of times, only difference is trump should be relieved that he will receive a fair trial.

If he loses in a court of law he’ll receive jail time.

Not:
Assassination.
Stabbed a bunch of times.
Hung by the neck.
Beheaded via guillotine.
Placed in front of a Firing squad.

a reply to: 3000Hard

Loads of times, only difference is trump should be relieved that he will receive a fair trial.

Then by all means, show your work. I mean you don't have any integrity or credibility so unfortunately I cannot take your word for it.

Not:
Stabbed a bunch of times.
Hung by the neck.
Beheaded via guillotine.
Placed in front of a Firing squad.

That's a heavy penalty. Hopefully you can provide some heavy evidence.......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Loads of times, only difference is trump should be relieved that he will receive a fair trial.

Then by all means, show your work. I mean you don't have any integrity or credibility so unfortunately I cannot take your word for it.

Not:
Stabbed a bunch of times.
Hung by the neck.
Beheaded via guillotine.
Placed in front of a Firing squad.

That's a heavy penalty. Hopefully you can provide some heavy evidence.......

Pick up a book.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Loads of times, only difference is trump should be relieved that he will receive a fair trial.

Then by all means, show your work. I mean you don't have any integrity or credibility so unfortunately I cannot take your word for it.

Not:
Stabbed a bunch of times.
Hung by the neck.
Beheaded via guillotine.
Placed in front of a Firing squad.

That's a heavy penalty. Hopefully you can provide some heavy evidence.......

Pick up a book.

I have one here, it's on the Constitution.

Do you have a recommendation?

Sooooo....how is that documents case going?