https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rnRY1tIPdeSw/v0
obviously
the left is evil and they will do everything they can to stop him

Now send it to SCOTUS and hope for the best.

lol.

It was a bad legal argument. This was an easy ruling. The president does not have carte blanche to commit any crime he wants in office and then claim immunity.

Trump's lawyers actually argued that if the president had a political rival assassinated, he'd still have to be impeached and convicted by the senate before criminal proceedings can begin.

Shocked that argument didn't land. Shocked.

Also, one of the judges was a Republican appointee.

why would we want potus to be above the law

you really want biden to never fear criminal charges

good ruling

It was always a bit of a long shot but it has never been legally determined decisively by case law so it was worth making the argument. The DC court is of course very biased to the left so it was always going to just be part of the process of getting the case to SCOTUS.

There is already a thread Manny!

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3390092/last

because Trumpers have no problem violating the Constitution as long as it's for their Orange God King

of course, not realizing that the odds are much higher that a leftist will use the same rationale to crush the right wing.

LMCane said:

---

because Trumpers have no problem violating the Constitution as long as it's for their Orange God King

of course, not realizing that the odds are much higher that a leftist will use the same rationale to crush the right wing.

---

Democrats definitely do not have issues violating the Constitution or any laws for that matter. They know nothing will ever be done to prosecute them. What a ridiculous country we live in today!

Old Army Ghost said:

---

why would we want potus to be above the law

you really want biden to never fear criminal charges

good ruling

---

The problem is we have two sets of standards. Biden does not fear criminal charges. He knows he's above the law. As is his son and Pelosi etc...

I'm not opposed to the ruling I just want the same standard applied to every politician.

Weird how presidential immunity wasn't an issue for like 240 years but it's just now coming up.

Also I'm no PR expert but "I should be allowed to commit whatever crimes I want because I was president" can't be great in terms of optics.

damiond said:

---

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rnRY1tIPdeSw/v0
obviously
the left is evil and they will do everything they can to stop him

---

Henderson was appointed by H.W. Bush and has sided with Trump on a lot of other cases that came before her. For her to join the opinion in full is telling.

Old Army Metal said:

---

Weird how presidential immunity wasn't an issue for like 240 years but it's just now coming up.

Also I'm no PR expert but "I should be allowed to commit whatever crimes I want because I was president" can't be great in terms of optics.

---

at this point everyone knows who Trump is. The argument has shifted from "I didn't do it" to "you can't prosecute me if I get elected president"

Precedent will be a b**ch.

HTownAg98 said:

---

damiond said:

---

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rnRY1tIPdeSw/v0
obviously
the left is evil and they will do everything they can to stop him

---

Henderson was appointed by H.W. Bush and has sided with Trump on a lot of other cases that came before her. For her to join the opinion in full is telling.

---

The question will be if SCOTUS is a clean sweep on this or not. I think even Thomas may side with the admin on this.

willtackleforfood said:

---

Precedent will be a b**ch.

---

When Biden calls multiple state SOS'es and tries to find dem votes and tells and angry mob to march on the capitol during the vote certification, Biden will regret this ruling!

barbacoa taco said:

---

lol.

It was a bad legal argument. This was an easy ruling. The president does not have carte blanche to commit any crime he wants in office and then claim immunity.

---

He didn't commit a crime though... so there's that

Nice fictional narrative. It touches on bits of fact without being truthful.

well good thing due process exists and he has a trial where he can clear his name.

GeorgiAg said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Precedent will be a b**ch.

---

When Biden calls multiple state SOS'es and tries to find dem votes and tells and angry mob to march on the capitol during the vote certification, Biden will regret this ruling!

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo when he threatened to withhold $1 million in aid unless Shokin was fired could be a criminal charge

DenverAg91 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Precedent will be a b**ch.

---

When Biden calls multiple state SOS'es and tries to find dem votes and tells and angry mob to march on the capitol during the vote certification, Biden will regret this ruling!

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo when he threatened to withhold $1 million in aid unless Shokin was fired could be a criminal charge

---

Well then why didn't Trump's justice department charge him?

Because there were unwritten gentlemen's rules against that.

Just like in college football how coaches don't turn in other coaches for tampering with their roster since they know that their program tampers with others rosters

Old Army Metal said:

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Precedent will be a b**ch.

---

When Biden calls multiple state SOS'es and tries to find dem votes and tells and angry mob to march on the capitol during the vote certification, Biden will regret this ruling!

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo when he threatened to withhold $1 million in aid unless Shokin was fired could be a criminal charge

---

Well then why didn't Trump's justice department charge him?

---

One billion in loan guarantees not one million.

But that raises an interesting question: Biden was the sitting VP at the time. Under the DC Circuit ruling issued today, Biden would be subject to the FCPA for foreign corrupt practices due to his motive to protect his son. (As it is, the statute of limitations has passed.)

barbacoa taco said:

---

well good thing due process exists and he has a trial where he can clear his name.

---

You're thinking of America. We're in a banana republic now and political persecutions are a thing.

Old Army Metal said:

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Precedent will be a b**ch.

---

When Biden calls multiple state SOS'es and tries to find dem votes and tells and angry mob to march on the capitol during the vote certification, Biden will regret this ruling!

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo when he threatened to withhold $1 million in aid unless Shokin was fired could be a criminal charge

---

Well then why didn't Trump's justice department charge him?

---

This is a good point....especially if you believe the DOJ is slanted heavily against Trump and/or all conservatives rather than generally applying the law equally (...and I said 'generally' as its perceived they haven't on occasion).

DenverAg91 said:

---

Because there were unwritten gentlemen's rules against that.

Just like in college football how coaches don't turn in other coaches for tampering with their roster since they know that their program tampers with others rosters

---

Since when is Trump beholden to gentlemen's rules about anything at all?

Why didn't he prosecute Hillary? "Lock her up" was a load-bearing plank of his campaign platform.

Here is what he said after winning the 2016 election

DenverAg91 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Precedent will be a b**ch.

---

When Biden calls multiple state SOS'es and tries to find dem votes and tells and angry mob to march on the capitol during the vote certification, Biden will regret this ruling!

---

The Ukraine quid pro quo when he threatened to withhold $1 million in aid unless Shokin was fired could be a criminal charge

---

That's (D)ifferent....

Old Army Metal said:

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

Because there were unwritten gentlemen's rules against that.

Just like in college football how coaches don't turn in other coaches for tampering with their roster since they know that their program tampers with others rosters

---

Since when is Trump beholden to gentlemen's rules about anything at all?

Why didn't he prosecute Hillary? "Lock her up" was a load-bearing plank of his campaign platform.

---

Trump created the culture of criminalizing political rivals. He also did things that were likely criminal (election fraud and stealing top secret documents and trying to hide them). He has no one to blame but himself. Giving the president unlimited immunity as a solution was always a terrible idea and bull*****

DenverAg91 said:

---

Because there were unwritten gentlemen's rules against that.

Just like in college football how coaches don't turn in other coaches for tampering with their roster since they know that their program tampers with others rosters

---

Dude

He literally ran on locking up Hillary

DenverAg91 said:

---

Here is what he said after winning the 2016 election

---

You may take that at face value, which is a wild thing to do with anything Trump says. I read that as "I really wanted to but turns out there wasn't enough evidence to build an actionable case."

Ehh I think it's more likely that he didn't take action on it because he didn't care about Hillary anymore after winning since she wasn't a threat to his power

DenverAg91 said:

---

Ehh I think it's more likely that he didn't take action on it because he didn't care about Hillary anymore after winning since she wasn't a threat to his power

---

That's some all-star level benefit of the doubt, right there.

When your lawyers are hand-picked because of their blind loyalty and/or ****ability, you find yourself in a lot of dubious legal situations. When they're government types who know they don't have the ability to build a winning case (and know they will continue to receive a paycheck regardless), then issues tend to stay on the back burner.

Old Army Metal said:

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

Ehh I think it's more likely that he didn't take action on it because he didn't care about Hillary anymore after winning since she wasn't a threat to his power

---

That's some all-star level benefit of the doubt, right there.

When your lawyers are hand-picked because of their blind loyalty and/or ****ability, you find yourself in a lot of dubious legal situations. When they're government types who know they don't have the ability to build a winning case (and know they will continue to receive a paycheck regardless), then issues tend to stay on the back burner.

---

Go back and listen to Comey's press conference in July 2016. He first laid out a full criminal case against Hillary...then said she was just stupid and had no criminal intent. Further because she was so stupid, no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her. FTR: the Director of the FBI does not get to make that determination. But that was only a few days/weeks after Loretta's tango on the tarmac with Bill, so AG Lynch wasn't going to say that.

Old Army Metal said:

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

Ehh I think it's more likely that he didn't take action on it because he didn't care about Hillary anymore after winning since she wasn't a threat to his power

---

That's some all-star level benefit of the doubt, right there.

When your lawyers are hand-picked because of their blind loyalty and/or ****ability, you find yourself in a lot of dubious legal situations. When they're government types who know they don't have the ability to build a winning case (and know they will continue to receive a paycheck regardless), then issues tend to stay on the back burner.

---

Do you believe the OJ Simpson trial was properly decided?

Jury selection matters a lot more than many of us want to admit, if he were tried in Brentwood instead of downtown LA, there would have been a different verdict

John Durham tried Clinton's lawyer Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI in the RussiaGate case and lost in front of a DC jury.

I don't think anyone can argue the evidence against Clinton wasn't strong but due to partisan lean there would have been a major risk of acquittal or a hung jury in a DC court

DenverAg91 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

Ehh I think it's more likely that he didn't take action on it because he didn't care about Hillary anymore after winning since she wasn't a threat to his power

---

That's some all-star level benefit of the doubt, right there.

When your lawyers are hand-picked because of their blind loyalty and/or ****ability, you find yourself in a lot of dubious legal situations. When they're government types who know they don't have the ability to build a winning case (and know they will continue to receive a paycheck regardless), then issues tend to stay on the back burner.

---

Do you believe the OJ Simpson trial was properly decided?

Jury selection matters a lot more than many of us want to admit, if he were tried in Brentwood instead of downtown LA, there would have been a different verdict

John Durham tried Clinton's lawyer Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI in the RussiaGate case and lost in front of a DC jury.

I don't think anyone can argue the evidence against Clinton wasn't strong but due to partisan lean there would have been a major risk of acquittal or a hung jury in a DC court

---

While I do not disagree with any of that but just wanted to point out the server was in Chappaqua so NY US Attorney's office would laso have had jurisdiction to bring an indictment, had they chosen to do so.