Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[jmmengel]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

Look up what without prejudice means.

I know what prejudice means. What is your point, if any?

If you dont get it, you dont get it.

I get it.

[Oilcandide]

Just because so many people charged Trump with crimes does not mean it is LAWFARE but rather it is because sufficient people (i.e. a grand jury) felt there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Those who claim it is LAWFARE are simply wanting to dismiss the actual facts.  Facts that would be presented at court. Facts of the damning variety, from the halls of the Capitol  to 1600 Penn Av to the bathrooms and storage rooms of Maralago.  Facts that aren't decided by ballots or political bloviating.

[jmmengel]

Is anyone surprised by this?

News Item



Kamala Harris sat down ON MSNBC for a friendly interview on Oct. 20 with AL Sharpton, an open supporter of Harris and the Democratic Party.
Following her loss to President elect Trump, FEC filings revealed the Harris campaign gave  two $250,000 donations to a Sharpton nonprofit organization in September and October
 but the MSNBC host did not inform viewers of the contributions or the conflict of interest before or after the interview.

[jmmengel]

Just because so many people charged Trump with crimes does not mean it is LAWFARE but rather it is because sufficient people (i.e. a grand jury) felt there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Those who claim it is LAWFARE are simply wanting to dismiss the actual facts.  Facts that would be presented at court. Facts of the damning variety, from the halls of the Capitol  to 1600 Penn Av to the bathrooms and storage rooms of Maralago.  Facts that aren't decided by ballots or political bloviating.

You mean the Grand Jury sat down on its own and decided to bring charges?

[Yankguy1]

I'm guessing Red's next post is going to mention a ham sandwich. 

[jmmengel]

I'm guessing Red's next post is going to mention a ham sandwich.

Thanks for the opening.
How many indicted Ham Sandwiches wound up convicted?

[Hairy Lime]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

True enough,  that is the other technicality shielding Trump from facing justice for his crimes, since it prevents prosecution for reasons unrelated to guilt or innocence. It is also completely unrelated to the Supreme Court decision. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "the point."

[jmmengel]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

True enough,  that is the other technicality shielding Trump from facing justice for his crimes, since it prevents prosecution for reasons unrelated to guilt or innocence. It is also completely unrelated to the Supreme Court decision. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "the point."

No you do.

[Hairy Lime]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

Look up what without prejudice means.

I know what prejudice means. What is your point, if any?

That Smith's dismissal was without it. And there is an open issue of equitable tolling that could allow the cases to be brought later. Respond after you Google the term.

[jmmengel]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

Look up what without prejudice means.

I know what prejudice means. What is your point, if any?

That Smith's dismissal was without it. And there is an open issue of equitable tolling that could allow the cases to be brought later. Respond after you Google the term.

It was Larry that asked the question, not me.

[Yankguy1]

And you get to learn something anyway.   

[jmmengel]

And you get to learn something anyway.

LEARN WHAT?

Lawfare was a political failure for the dems.
The voters buried all the cases.
That is democracy. 

[Hairy Lime]

And you get to learn something anyway.

LEARN WHAT?

Well, yank, that was wishful thinking.

[Hairy Lime]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

Look up what without prejudice means.

I know what prejudice means. What is your point, if any?

That Smith's dismissal was without it. And there is an open issue of equitable tolling that could allow the cases to be brought later. Respond after you Google the term.

It was Larry that asked the question, not me.

Only question i. That chain was yours.

[jmmengel]

No, the Court created evidentiary exclusionary rule. You know, like they did for the 4th and 5th Amendment, creating a rule that bars prosecution or limits evidence for issues not related to guilt or innocence. A technicality that allows the guilty to escape punishment.

You are delusional.
The office of Legal Counsel decided in 2000 that dismissing charges only to recharge later could create a significant statute of limitations issue.
Since PRESIDENTIAL  term is four years long and the statute of limitations calls for charges to be filed within five years of the alleged crime, most pre-presidency criminal acts would be shielded from prosecution .
Now a Court might solve this problem by pausing or suspending  the statute of limitations.
But the OLC also emphasized  there is no assurance that a court could or would do so, particularly when the American public had elected the president despite the charges against him.
Which just happened.

Look up what without prejudice means.

I know what prejudice means. What is your point, if any?

That Smith's dismissal was without it. And there is an open issue of equitable tolling that could allow the cases to be brought later. Respond after you Google the term.

It was Larry that asked the question, not me.

Only question i. That chain was yours.

Nope