Breaking News: Former President Trump says he has been indicted
(www.foxnews.com)
LET'S GOOoOoooo!!!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (164)
sorted by:
Hmmmm..... >:)
2 Keks
Ahh... Yup. and now that it IS happening, with leftists gnarling and gnashing their teeth like a pack of hungry jackals, I don't suppose they'll have much to say when the evil cabal puppets like renegade, hilldawg, joey bribes (aka Potatus) and others have their military trials eventually televised (I hope). After all...
Precedent. Has. Now. Been. Set.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but I must be missing something here. People keep saying this and they obviously think it's important. But a precedent wasn't necessary to indict Trump. So why would a precedent be needed to indict any other former Presidents? What am I missing on this?
It’s about the social or cultural precedent more than anything legal. It’s about undermining the corporate media’s ability to gin up riots and an actual civil war if Obama is arrested. By getting them on the record going after Trump over nothing first, it neutralizes their ability to spin it if the cabal gets arrested for crimes against children.
Ok, that does make sense. I was thinking about it in a purely legal way. Thanks for taking the time to answer, and being polite about it. ✌️
Do they think that getting ahead of their own, valid indictments by going after Trump with hoaxes will make their own arrests appear to be simply trumped-up revenge?
You're not being an ass, but perhaps just technical/literal/precise.
In our history since the Watergate affair in the early 1970s - five decades ago - where a (sitting) President was brought up on criminal charges, there seems to have been a moratorium on the idea of charging our presidents for crimes. It's "not done" as Presidents (and former Presidents) have been socially-culturally deemed "untouchable", at least in my memory. Think they've committed a crime? Get over it, move on, too disruptive to the country, leave sleeping dogs to lie, etc. It's not a legal construct, per se, (or maybe it is?), though now when hauling the Potatus or the Renegade in front of a judge for any number of criminal activities - if the leftist jackals start howling how "You can't do that!!", they'll be met with "You set the precedent; we're just following it.". Our country is more divided than at any time (with the exception of the Civil War era, perhaps). They won't be able to get away with claims that investigating the Renegade is a politically-motivated witch hunt after this.
This has broken a socio-political taboo that, if I had to guess, is going to open the door for charges to be brought against the swamp creatures.
.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/precedent
.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
.
Edit: I was writing my long-winded reply while anon sun_wolf came in with a more succinct reply. (What can I say? I'm verbose).
That really does make sense. Thanks for taking the time to share this. And you're right. I tend to take things very literally. I need to remind myself of that from time to time.
They already did it with nixon tho. The precedent is already set. and they're still gonna whine if anyone goes after obama
I've been listening to Bongino a lot lately. He says nothings going to happen to any of them. It's like all of this dark shit will be swept under the rug and treated like Lord Voldemort.
I hope not, but it's an interesting theory anyway. I like Bongino, don't always agree with him, but haven't listened to him in awhile. Does he give any good reasons why he thinks this may happen? Remember also that Q stated that about 80% of what the Q operation has been doing will remain hidden so I'm not sure we'll ever be privy to it.
P R E C E D E N T
Yep. Precedent has now been set.
Former presidentS can now be indicted.