The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[FlashDangerpants]

So you want there to be permanent immunity from prosecution for all politicians? What about all the "lock her up" stuff for Hillary?

What if there turns out to be proof that Bill Clinton and Donal Trump both went to that Epstein sex island and banged underage prostitutes?

Was it good for France and England to decapitate their monarchs too?

Yes, there is a degree of immunity that comes with being the most powerful chief representative of Western Civilization.

Don't pretend like Democrats are purely clean and innocent, that they aren't criminals. So why should one faction of criminals pay for their crimes, while the other are not?


I'll skip ahead, since you're behind in the logic.

It leads to a cycle of violence, civil war, because the incoming political 'outsider' then has no reason to give-up power peacefully, knowing his opposition will imprison him if he loses.

Please answer the actual question.

[Wizard22]

Where in the law is equality of outcome required? Please show me.

You're the one who put forward that rationale, not me...

Are you confused abour your identity, child? You are pretending that I put forward whart you put forward.

I believe, and know, Democracies are very fallible. You don't seem to understand this point.

I understand this point just fine.

What you appear to be adovocating for is that because democracies are falible, then we should do our best to exploit this fallibility in order to maximize our own political gain.

Which is what makes you an extremist. Left or right - doesn't matter. An idiot either way.

Lol, you can't even stay on point, Skepdick, learn to argue.

It was YOUR rationale that implied Democracy is immutable, or that American prosecutors are going to "look at it fairly" when considering Democrat criminals and crimes.

How about the recent Hunter Biden scandals...crack in the White House, gun possession, all dropped due to Hunter Biden political immunity.



Do you know, that on Hunter Biden's laptop, there were recorded messages of Hunter urging and persuading Joe to run for president in 2020, because he was in such bad shape legally, that he needed presidential political immunity to keep himself out of jail???

Probably not, because you're generally uninformed about a lot of things.

[Wizard22]

Please answer the actual question.

Trump did not "lock her up" though.

The difference is between the threat, and following through with the threat, which the Democrat-Liberal-Left have moved on.

Hence your position is Anti-Democratic.

[Skepdick]

Deliberately, of course, you choose to pretend respect for the law and the Constitution while not considering that the cases brought are substantially without merit.

You do understand that part of the function of due process is to establish merit, yes? Somewhere along the way before ending up in an atual trial.

That is when examined carefully (Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz). Their real function is brazen election interference — as all recognize. (Even you though you support it). The timing of these indictments indicates what their real function is.

There is no such thing as "real" or "fake" function. Is the timing strategic? Of course! Everybody knows this.

Does that mean the cases are without merit? Why would it?

[commonsense]

If a former president can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have committed serious criminal offences, he should not be above the law should he? He gets his day in court and due process just like everybody else.

Because it's corrupt beyond law to jail your political opponents? What is this, the Soviet Union? Do you know what "Banana Republic" means?

It's ridiculous to imply that Democrat politicians are somehow "law abiding"; it only adds to the incredulity of charging Conservative Americans/Republicans/Trump.

Anyone who thinks these indictments are politically motivated ought to consider that the ex-president gains funds throughout his legal woes. What political strategy is intended to assist the opposition with fundraising?

[commonsense]

But FOX Entertainment and “News” Network lost a multi-BILLION dollar lawsuit to Dominion about promotion falsehoods that you say were spiked. That’s a fact. That’s evidence.

They didn't "lose" a lawsuit. They settled. It was not taken to court.

Very few or none of the recent political persecutions saw a court room.

They get negotiated out at cost. Trump's election fraud cases, also, did not see courtrooms. Most of them were (unjustly) denied, since there were mountains of evidence of election interference/fraud. On top of the fact that social media and even google, was spiking, purging, and censoring evidence of the cases.

You’re right. They just lost a lot of money.

[Skepdick]

Lol, you can't even stay on point, Skepdick, learn to argue.

Q.E.D The way you have "learned to argue" is to constantly move off-point. And to even pretend that I've made points that I haven't.

It was YOUR rationale that implied Democracy is immutable

Was it my rationale, or was it you projecting some imaginary rationale onto me?

or that American prosecutors are going to "look at it fairly" when considering Democrat criminals and crimes.

Then let them look at things unfairly. Fairness has nothing to do with prosecuting cases which can be prosecuted. The system's made out of people. People who want to make reputations.

It's as reputable to convict a Republican president; as it is to convict a Deomcrat president.

How about the recent Hunter Biden scandals...crack in the White House, gun possession, all dropped due to Hunter Biden political immunity.

How about them? Build the case. Collect the evidence. Give it to the prosecutor.

You understand how the system works, yes? Lubricate it towards the result you want if you have the evidence.

And if it doesn't happen - oh well. Democracy is fallible, right?

Do you know, that on Hunter Biden's laptop, there were recorded messages of Hunter urging and persuading Joe to run for president in 2020, because he was in such bad shape legally, that he needed presidential political immunity to keep himself out of jail???

Probably not, because you're generally uninformed about a lot of things.

I am still not sure what to do with this information. Suppose it's true.

And then?

[FlashDangerpants]

If a former president can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have committed serious criminal offences, he should not be above the law should he? He gets his day in court and due process just like everybody else.

Because it's corrupt beyond law to jail your political opponents? What is this, the Soviet Union? Do you know what "Banana Republic" means?

It's ridiculous to imply that Democrat politicians are somehow "law abiding"; it only adds to the incredulity of charging Conservative Americans/Republicans/Trump.

So you want there to be permanent immunity from prosecution for all politicians? What about all the "lock her up" stuff for Hillary?

What if there turns out to be proof that Bill Clinton and Donal Trump both went to that Epstein sex island and banged underage prostitutes?

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you know, that on Hunter Biden's laptop, there were recorded messages of Hunter urging and persuading Joe to run for president in 2020, because he was in such bad shape legally, that he needed presidential political immunity to keep himself out of jail???

Probably not, because you're generally uninformed about a lot of things.

I am still not sure what to do with this information. Suppose it's true.

And then?

That's very gernerous of you. If somebody tries to persuade me that the normal place to find a voicemail is on the laptop of the person leaving the voicemail I would suggest they were a credulous imbecile for believing such a thing themselves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is no such thing as "real" or "fake" function. Is the timing strategic? Of course! Everybody knows this.

Does that mean the cases are without merit? Why would it?

Real function = a function that is the true function, not what is stated in the charges. There very certainly is a “real function” and that is why the charges, and the timing, are recognized as unethical.

The merit of these cases is highly dubious when examined by lawyers with experience. Especially consider Dershowitz: a Democrat who is no fan of DT.

You do understand that part of the function of due process is to establish merit, yes?

Under normal circumstances, perhaps. The extraordinary present circumstances show that “justice” is no part of the real concern. I see so little “merit” and see mostly political decisions.

[Skepdick]

Real function = a function that is the true function, not what is stated in the charges. There very certainly is a “real function” and that is why the charges, and the timing, are recognized as unethical.

No, that's just the language you are making up to avoid having to confront the possibility that both things can be true simultaneously.

The merit of these cases is highly dubious when examined by lawyers with experience. Especially consider Dershowitz: a Democrat who is no fan of DT.

And he has been able to make that judgment now that all the investigations have compiled the evidence together, yeah? Because that's how it's supposed to work...

The prosecutor can review the case and come to the same conclusion.

Under normal circumstances, perhaps. The extraordinary present circumstances show that “justice” is no part of the real concern. I see so little “merit” and see mostly political decisions.

Then let justice be part of the "fake" concern. If the case has merit - I am OK with imprisoning people on the basis of real crimes prosecuted because of fake concerns.

This constant double-speak doesn't pass my sniff test in the least.

[Skepdick]

That's very gernerous of you. If somebody tries to persuade me that the normal place to find a voicemail is on the laptop of the person leaving the voicemail I would suggest they were a credulous imbecile for believing such a thing themselves.

It's very generous of you to examine the persuasions of nutjobs with such a fine-toothed comb.

That's giving them far more attention/time than I would invest in say, scratching my balls.

Least of all because they don' thave to persuade me - they have to persuade the prosecutor and the judge. Shut up and file the evidence already.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, that's just the language you are making up to avoid having to confront the possibility that both things can be true simultaneously.

What I can tell you is that I have listened to the arguments that dissect the charges and those arguments convince me that the charges are more political than anything else. Therefore I can conceive of the validity of charges (generically) but not these charges, which are political and extensions of the political attacks origination in the Russia accusations, the impeachments, etc., which now involve indictments of lawyers. This is unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous.

Isn’t all of this something that you yourself should examine? It seems to me you are avoiding a fair examination of everything here in your zealousness to defend what a political faction is attempting.

I do not discount *breaking the law* but I am not convinced that laws were broken. That case has not been successfully made.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And he has been able to make that judgment now that all the investigations have compiled the evidence together, yeah? Because that's how it's supposed to work...

What he determined, before the indictments, was that there was a general decision to “get Trump”. He is clear and eloquent in his opinion. And he names this as a developing political and Constitutional crisis of dangerous precedent.

He predicted that (bogus) charges would be brought. And no, this is not how it is supposed to work. This is how it is not supposed to work.

For these reasons the entire scenario is unprecedented, dangerous, destructive to Constitutional guarantees, and the health of the Republic.

What interests me is that you do not choose to notice any of this. Why?

[Skepdick]

What interests me is that you do not choose to notice any of this. Why?

Because it's within the operating parameters of the system.

But hey, you don't like it and you think something untoward is happening here.

What would you like to change in the law, constitution or mandate of the various instututions and role-players in order to prevent this from happening to the next guy?

If you don't have any systemic changes in mind then what are we talking about?