Why are there no prosecutions?

Earl said:
But not rape, as you far left loons lie that he was.

He said he had never seen the woman before.

More far left law-fare.

The American people don't buy your horse mierda anymore.
Click to expand...
A Jury disagreed.
 
Jarod said:
A Jury disagreed.
Click to expand...
We could assemble a jury here on JPP and convict you of just about anything. You would have to be stupid to not understand this and you are a lot of undesirable things but stupid isn't one of them.

It was a Kangaroo court. You know it and we all know you know it so cut the shit.

How much money has that nutsy coo coo cat lady gotten from Trump thus far? And she never will. The charade is over now, daddy's home.
 
Jarod said:

So some crimes, that if true could likely have killed people are not okay to prosecute, but others are?

Political prosecutions are ones where the crime was made up for political purposes.
Click to expand...
So, like the one where they took a crime where Trump was convicted of nothing at all, never even charged with, then they used his supposed "guilt" in a crime he wasn't charged with to resurrect a misdemeanor that had past its statute of limitations, that kind of thing?

Trying to narrow this down. If that isn't the kind of thing that would be political prosecution then we have solid ground for a conversation, if it is not then we have a different conversation but still have solid ground. If that would not be political prosecution in your definition then there is almost no limit on what should be charged, in such a case Hillary being charged with crimes for her criminal handling of classified materials while in her role as Secretary of State should absolutely be prosecuted, barring any legal barriers such as statutes of limitation.

If we are talking Espionage Act, the statute of limitations would be 10 years, unless it was a "willful attempt to harm the United States" then there is no statute of limitations. So, in Hillary's case, statute of limitation has passed after the AG under Obama declined to prosecute and directed Comey to say that "nobody would ever prosecute such a thing, nope"...

However, I would say that if we are going to stretch crimes for which folks have never been charged around misdemeanors to resurrect a prosecution after the fact... I'm surprised someone hasn't given it a go in this one. Though, at this point it seems it would be IMHO political prosecution... Let them off, bring them back, never let it go, but do... This isn't the kind of thing our Justice Department should be part of...

What say you? You think we should try to resurrect Hillary's crime from the statute of limitations by attaching some other crime that the jury might think she did commit so it would be okay to prosecute and convict her?
 
Damocles said:
So, like the one where he was convicted of nothing at all, then they used his supposed "guilt" in a crime he wasn't charged with to resurrect a misdemeanor that had past its statute of limitations, that kind of thing?

Trying to narrow this down. If that isn't the kind of thing that would be political prosecution then we have solid ground for a conversation, if it is not then we have a different conversation but still have solid ground. If that would not be political prosecution then there is almost no limit on what should be charged, in such a case Hillary being charged with crimes for her criminal handling of classified materials while in her role as Secretary of State should absolutely be prosecuted, barring any legal barriers such as statutes of limitation.

If we are talking Espionage Act, the statute of limitations would be 10 years, unless it was a "willful attempt to harm the United States" then there is no statute of limitations.

So, in Hillary's case, statute of limitation has passed after the AG under Obama declined to prosecute and directed Comey to say that "nobody would prosecute"...

However, I would say that if we are going to stretch crimes for which folks have never been charged around misdemeanors to resurrect a prosecution after the fact... I'm surprised someone hasn't given it a go in this one...
Click to expand...
The Felon’s prosecution was Not nothing at all. The Felon had 4 years to prosecute Hillary
 
Jarod said:
The Felon’s prosecution was Not nothing at all. The Felon had 4 years to prosecute Hillary
Click to expand...
As I said, using those standards then yeah, he should have prosecuted. Y'all would have been apoplectic... but that was real criminal behavior. I agree, we should have prosecuted Hillary for her crimes.

As for the current folks... It seems that on the way out they just put a bunch of pardons in machines and gave themselves passes. Do you think we should ignore the pardons as they seem to have been done without the consent of the braindead, or do you think they are safe (like I do)? You don't even need paper according to the SCOTUS, it is the intent to pardon that matters...
 
Damocles said:
So, like the one where they took a crime where Trump was convicted of nothing at all, never even charged with, then they used his supposed "guilt" in a crime he wasn't charged with to resurrect a misdemeanor that had past its statute of limitations, that kind of thing?

Trying to narrow this down. If that isn't the kind of thing that would be political prosecution then we have solid ground for a conversation, if it is not then we have a different conversation but still have solid ground. If that would not be political prosecution in your definition then there is almost no limit on what should be charged, in such a case Hillary being charged with crimes for her criminal handling of classified materials while in her role as Secretary of State should absolutely be prosecuted, barring any legal barriers such as statutes of limitation.

If we are talking Espionage Act, the statute of limitations would be 10 years, unless it was a "willful attempt to harm the United States" then there is no statute of limitations. So, in Hillary's case, statute of limitation has passed after the AG under Obama declined to prosecute and directed Comey to say that "nobody would ever prosecute such a thing, nope"...

However, I would say that if we are going to stretch crimes for which folks have never been charged around misdemeanors to resurrect a prosecution after the fact... I'm surprised someone hasn't given it a go in this one. Though, at this point it seems it would be IMHO political prosecution... Let them off, bring them back, never let it go, but do... This isn't the kind of thing our Justice Department should be part of...

What say you? You think we should try to resurrect Hillary's crime from the statute of limitations by attaching some other crime that the jury might think she did commit so it would be okay to prosecute and convict her?
Click to expand...
You see why I am often nasty and vile toward these people. They are not looking for nor have any intention of having a real discussion with content because their bullshit breaks down too fast if they try. They are the kids in elementary school who eventually needed to be beat up at recess.
 
Damocles said:
As I said, using those standards then yeah, he should have prosecuted. Y'all would have been apoplectic... but that was real criminal behavior. I agree, we should have prosecuted Hillary for her crimes.

As for the current folks... It seems that on the way out they just put a bunch of pardons in machines and gave themselves passes. Do you think we should ignore the pardons as they seem to have been done without the consent of the braindead, or do you think they are safe (like I do)? You don't even need paper according to the SCOTUS, it is the intent to pardon that matters...
Click to expand...
Biden was not pardoned. Several others you claimed committed crimes were not pardoned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top