Media Bias

Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk



Oh for God’s sake man. Can’t you just put your political affiliations aside for one post and admit that this motherfucker tried to play tit for tat with military aid? Obama never did anything that rose to that level. And he was hated by the right from the get go. Didn’t have to ooze shit from his piehole to warrant that hate like Trump has.

FOX sure as hell would have ,right?



Exactly. Something tells me Cred has graduated to info wars because Fox wasn’t digging deep enough for fresh conspiracies.

They are included in the impeachment articles. I forget what the term is, but what he was impeached for basically encapsulates alot of other stuff.

Lol...basically just make up any shit you want

:laughing-

Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. He actually did commit crimes. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.

As Robert Mueller said repeatedly the DOJ has a policy of "not indicting a sitting President" ,.............meaning as long as he is president nothing will happen but when his term ends they can go after him for what ever crimes had been uncovered

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Congress using the impeachment process. But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question.


The question looms large with Special Counsel Robert Mueller preparing a report on his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, whether President Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow and whether Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe.

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts.

Here is an explanation of the rationale behind the Justice Department policy and whether it applies to Mueller.


WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY?


In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees, including Mueller, according to many legal experts. Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein.

Lol...basically just make up any shit you want

:laughing-

No, it's what the House says they are.......................





Innocent men have nothing to hide

Lol...basically just make up any shit you want



:laughing-



No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?

My bottom line in politics is this and so far I dont think ive been wrong ... whether its a D or an R in control, it never actually effects my day to day life.

I was born a couple weeks after JFK took office. Only the last two had an effect on my life. Drafting for the Vietnam war ended when I was 14 and they haven't had a draft since. Obamacare caused my health insurance rates to almost quadruple.

Trump and his tariffs made sourcing "domestic" steel and aluminum a pain in the rear. Mills and wholesalers used the tariffs as excuses to play all kinds of games with pricing and delivery. Some places raised prices up to 60% overnight. Things seemed to have finally settled down a bit and prices are dropping but nowhere near pre-tariff levels. As I mentioned I buy domestic only.

No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?I think you mean lesser included charges. Those charges are still brought against the person, but the components of the charges are included in the statute that is being charged. So if you charge murder you might include manslaughter so that if the jury doesnt find intent they can find him guilty of the lesser charge.

Not sure it is the same with the impeacment, because although the Democrats alleged bribery in documents, the House chose not to vote to include it either as its own article or as a part of 1 of the 2 articles of impeachment. And their rationale stated in questioning was, well the defense would argue against it.

For every flaw in the impeachment case, the house seemed to argue, well we had to do it that way or the president's team would have found a loophole and tried to use it. That is what defense lawyers do! And you can not deny a sitting president due process just because you don't want to have to close those loopholes so you can rush to the end.

Could you imagine in ANY court in the US a defense attorney agreeing to only present witnesses that the prosecution says the defense needs? Or a defense attorney waving attorney client privilege so that the prosecution can have the trial around their schedule??

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.:bs: