• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Department of Justice need their heads examined

mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
"President-elect Donald Trump would have been convicted of illegally trying to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election - which he lost - if he had not successfully been re-elected in 2024, according to a Department of Justice report released to Congress."

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump would have been convicted of election interference, DoJ report says

A prosecutor says there was enough evidence in the 2020 US election case - but he was scuppered by Trump's win in 2024.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Last I checked, the point of punishing someone for a crime was an attempt to deter them from committing such crimes again? Which Trump's conviction would have achieved (at least until the Supreme Court stepped in to rewrite the law in his favour).

I wonder if this is the next stage in Trump's plan or whether fear will keep any pesky would-be do-gooders in line like it has done this time:
 
What did you expect them to do? Cannon ran interference for him the whole way. There was zero chance of getting him to an actual trial before the election...and once he won, there was no way it would ever happen.
 
BoomerD said:
What did you expect them to do? Cannon ran interference for him the whole way. There was zero chance of getting him to an actual trial before the election...and once he won, there was no way it would ever happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know the system, but for example ejecting / replacing Cannon should be an option. Having mechanisms in place to help protect the anti-corruption system from corruption seems like a basic self-defence measure.
 
BoomerD said:
What did you expect them to do? Cannon ran interference for him the whole way. There was zero chance of getting him to an actual trial before the election...and once he won, there was no way it would ever happen.
Click to expand...
Detain him on grounds that the credible accusation makes him a threat to the stability of the country, and use the constitutional right to a speedy trial as grounds to bypass Cannon? Or is that too 'political'?
 
How Cannon got anywhere near the job of judging his trial is another factor that boggles my mind.... "Gee, should I play hardball with the guy who got me a promotion despite my highly dubious suitability for the role?"

I understand that finding someone completely unbiased is going to be tricky because it's Trump, but as conflicts of interests go it's a pretty glaring one.
 
BoomerD said:
What did you expect them to do? Cannon ran interference for him the whole way. There was zero chance of getting him to an actual trial before the election...and once he won, there was no way it would ever happen.
Click to expand...
Should've brought the charges much earlier. Should've brought the classified document charges in DC, and should've search all of his properties for documents. Should've tried to kick Cannon off the case much sooner.

Should've also charged all the other fuckers too instead of just him.
 
mikeymikec said:
How Cannon got anywhere near the job of judging his trial is another factor that boggles my mind.... "Gee, should I play hardball with the guy who got me a promotion despite my highly dubious suitability for the role?"

I understand that finding someone completely unbiased is going to be tricky because it's Trump, but as conflicts of interests go it's a pretty glaring one.
Click to expand...
Especially because she already had a history of making up legal ideas to help Trump.
 
Zorba said:
Yes, they did charge a could others in it, but didn't charge others for Jan 6th.
Click to expand...

I just looked at my OP and realised that this wasn't about the classified docs case... am I the only one having trouble keeping track of his criming. I ought to read the news article completely to try and find out what their excuse was in this particular case.
 
mikeymikec said:
"President-elect Donald Trump would have been convicted of illegally trying to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election - which he lost - if he had not successfully been re-elected in 2024, according to a Department of Justice report released to Congress."

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump would have been convicted of election interference, DoJ report says

A prosecutor says there was enough evidence in the 2020 US election case - but he was scuppered by Trump's win in 2024.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Last I checked, the point of punishing someone for a crime was an attempt to deter them from committing such crimes again? Which Trump's conviction would have achieved (at least until the Supreme Court stepped in to rewrite the law in his favour).

I wonder if this is the next stage in Trump's plan or whether fear will keep any pesky would-be do-gooders in line like it has done this time:
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that they stated he would have been convicted. I thought a jury had to make that decision.
 
Greenman said:
I find it interesting that they stated he would have been convicted. I thought a jury had to make that decision.
Click to expand...

The report DID NOT state that. So, go beyond the headline ...

It stated that the evidence they had was legally sufficient to get and sustain a conviction. Something every federal prosecutor judges in their determination to go forth with a prosecution.
 
And greenie doesn’t believe his own eyes with all the corrupt actions his orange monkey king did in plain sight. The behind the scenes just confirms everything we already know. And can’t wait for the tap dancing to avoid condemning what will be even worse Jan 20
 
I've been trying to find out if the appeal of Judge Cannon's ruling regarding the propriety of Jack Smith's appointment will continue, or if has been rendered moot. It seems like a a more definitive ruling would be useful to guide future appointments.
 
crashtech said:
I've been trying to find out if the appeal of Judge Cannon's ruling regarding the propriety of Jack Smith's appointment will continue, or if has been rendered moot. It seems like a a more definitive ruling would be useful to guide future appointments.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we’ll be seeing any more special prosecutor appointments any time soon.
 
crashtech said:
I've been trying to find out if the appeal of Judge Cannon's ruling regarding the propriety of Jack Smith's appointment will continue, or if has been rendered moot. It seems like a a more definitive ruling would be useful to guide future appointments.
Click to expand...
If the courts were institutions that relied on a set of stated principles the case would be ended as moot. Since the courts just make up whatever shit they want to now though who knows.
 
mikeymikec said:
"President-elect Donald Trump would have been convicted of illegally trying to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election - which he lost - if he had not successfully been re-elected in 2024, according to a Department of Justice report released to Congress."

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump would have been convicted of election interference, DoJ report says

A prosecutor says there was enough evidence in the 2020 US election case - but he was scuppered by Trump's win in 2024.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Last I checked, the point of punishing someone for a crime was an attempt to deter them from committing such crimes again? Which Trump's conviction would have achieved (at least until the Supreme Court stepped in to rewrite the law in his favour).

I wonder if this is the next stage in Trump's plan or whether fear will keep any pesky would-be do-gooders in line like it has done this time:
Click to expand...
You seem to forget that the SCOTUS gave Trump a get out a jail free card.
 
ZxzLLPv.png



If a magat brings up DEI in the military, I remind them if they support a traitor, insurrectionist, sexual predator and felon for CiC, their opinon on the military is completely worthless to me.
 
Hope for the safety of Jack Smith and his family. I’m sure he has made contingency plans. I just hope they’re enough. Maybe get his old job back at The Hague. Wherever he goes, I hope it is far enough. I have some serious concerns that it won’t be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top