Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They found no evident. That exonerated Trump. In 3 years they found nothing. They knew there was no evidence early on. No there there. Extreme abuse of power by the communists.. we get it.
Yeah, but they couldn't any proof that he DIDN'T do ......... it. You know.. whatever it is they thought he did.
For that matter they didn't prove you didn't do "it" either, so I'd look out. They may prosecute you and you'd have to spend millions proving that you didn't do... whatever it is they could not prove you didn't do....
I don't have an issue with the two parties policing each other, as that cuts down on the corruption. In this situation Trump reeks of corruption, so let justice prevail.
So far, justice has prevailed.
Trump is President.
The original article is from about 18 months ago - why now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Where did you find that information, please?
From wikipedia
Quote:
Absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity.
In the United States, absolute civil immunity applies to the following people and circumstances:
lawmakers engaged in the legislative process;
judges acting in their judicial capacity;
government prosecutors while making charging decisions;
executive officers while performing adjudicative functions; the President of the United States;
Presidential aides who first show that the functions of their office are so sensitive as to require absolute immunity, and who then show that they were performing those functions when performing the act at issue;
witnesses while testifying in court (although they are still subject to perjury);
lawyers in certain circumstances related to fraud
Presidential immunity
In 1982, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the President enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts undertaken while he or she is President. The Court suggested that this immunity was broad (though not limitless), applying to acts within the "outer perimeter'" of the President's official duties.
The first one is part of the reason Pelosi and Nadler can tell outright lies and not be held liable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
All you need is evidence of a crime, and DOJ will jump on it with both feet.
You mean like Biden and Obama working with Hillary that was the start of the Russia investigation?
Obama, Biden, Hillary, Strzok, Page, Clapper, & Comey did FAR worse things than Trump ever did. Last I saw they were still walking around as Trump should be.
He hasn't done anything except upset the liberals who have tried for years without success to undermine his presidency. If anything, it's been amusing to see them crap themselves over their failures.
That picture is actually kind of funny - but not as funny as liberals actually believing Trump will serve a day in jail. Not happening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
