Comey Indicted

#28
#28
OrangeTsar said:
Do you hold Letitia James to the same standard Since she campaigned for the ATTORNEY GENERAL position promoting to „get Trump“?
Click to expand...


Shes an elected prosecutor. These folks are appointed. Influence by the POTUS crosses the line between an elected political position and an appointed to DOJ.

The fact that Trump himself says he fired the ASA who declined to prosecute for that very reason justifies dismissal of the charges and sanctions against the prosecutor.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
The public trail that this is political is undeniable. I mean, the ASA who had the case -- a Trump supporter - quit saying that he would not be complicit in this.

Trump responded by saying he fired the guy because he would not indict Comey, then Trump installed a political operative who got the indictment in days.

US attorneys represent the US, not Trump. That Trump by his own words put someone in there just to retaliate against Comey is a huge problem. Or should be for anyone with an ounce of integrity.

This is going to get really ugly really fast. And the Supreme Court's credibility will be on the line shortly.
Click to expand...

the same was true for Bragg, James and Willis but where was the outrage about these clearly political prosecutions. not only was there none; they were celebrated by the very people who will now cry foul about Comey.

would be nice if it didn't happen ever but there's a long trail of these tools being used against Trump and his associates so why would anyone be surprised what goes around comes around
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol, Vol since 77, norrislakevol and 2 others
#30
#30
volinbham said:
if that's the Constitutional interpretation then it's not being "above the law" as the law says this person has immunity in certain acts - it is following the law.
Click to expand...

That's what's awesome about this, the Constitution says nothing about the president having 'absolute immunity'.

It the 'judicial activism' that you all like to rail about when it's convenient to do so.

Just like 'fiscal conservatism', you all have burned 'originalism' on the alter of Trump as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#31
#31
BeardedVol said:
That's what's awesome about this, the Constitution says nothing about the president having 'absolute immunity'.

It the 'judicial activism' that you all like to rail about when it's convenient to do so.

Just like 'fiscal conservatism', you all have burned 'originalism' on the alter of Trump as well.
Click to expand...

can you point to any posts where I have railed about judicial activism? I'll wait. Can you find any posts about any position I have on originalism? I'll wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Shes an elected prosecutor. These folks are appointed. Influence by the POTUS crosses the line between an elected political position and an appointed to DOJ.

The fact that Trump himself says he fired the ASA who declined to prosecute for that very reason justifies dismissal of the charges and sanctions against the prosecutor.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if she is elected or not. She promised to prosecute someone without even seeing the evidence or interviewing any witnesses. Do you REALLY not see that as a failure of basic legal ethics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and volinbham
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Shes an elected prosecutor. These folks are appointed. Influence by the POTUS crosses the line between an elected political position and an appointed to DOJ.

The fact that Trump himself says he fired the ASA who declined to prosecute for that very reason justifies dismissal of the charges and sanctions against the prosecutor.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely incorrect.
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
the same was true for Bragg, James and Willis but where was the outrage about these clearly political prosecutions. not only was there none; they were celebrated by the very people who will now cry foul about Comey.

would be nice if it didn't happen ever but there's a long trail of these tools being used against Trump and his associates so why would anyone be surprised what goes around comes around
Click to expand...
Lawfare giveth and lawfare taketh away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -GiveHim6-, SpaceCoastVol, Vol since 77 and 8 others
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Wondering right now if the right leaning folks on thos board are bothered by this.
Click to expand...
So the Dems used political law fare in an attempt to prevent Trump from running again. Weren’t successful so now it’s payback time. Tit for tat political posturing IMO.
 
#49
#49
SpaceCoastVol said:
Unsurprising that you have no grip on the reality that is the federal government machine.
Click to expand...
What does the "federal government machine" have to do with the Supreme Court reinterpreting the Constitution to find absolute immunity for the president?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top