5 year felony for Trump ?

That is a prospective sentence for taking classified national security documents.

Trump did just that.

"the largest scale violation of the Presidential Records Act since its enactment." Originally Posted by VitaMan

Those were incident reports made on Joe Biden by Secret Service Agents when Joe was VP. It was reported that he was often seen walking around the White House either nude or partially dressed and was seen on several occasions masturbating in the Rose Garden. He's probably still doing that if he can remember how.

Read. Removing classified documents is a felony. Trump did that.

No one has been able to defend Trump. All they do is reference Hillary.

So many here want to "ignore" reality.
They can keep their asses. They are getting their heads handed to them. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Nobody is trying to defend Trump. You are just to dumb to understand that.


Some of us are actually trying to explain reality or what should be reality, to you.


If Trump is guilty, then give him the same treatment they gave Hillary for essentially the same crime. What is it about that reality you don't get?


Equal Justice under the Law! That is what reality should be.

Ummm... the part of the 14th amendment that the dems want to use to keep Trump out of office:

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

If they try to use this against Trump, the Republicans can apply to the following former presidents:

Obama - he helped open our borders to allow insurgents into our country.

Biden: He GAVE military equipment TO the enemy!

It might even be applied to Hilary.

In fact I think once the mid terms happen and the House & Senate are back under republican control as well as the Speaker of the House, Biden might just find out about part 3 of the 14th amendment.

Besides, Trump does not have to run for president.. once we take back the house, senate we can appoint a NEW speaker of the house (Trump) then proceed to impeach biden and harris at the same time.. follow the line of successors.

Nobody is trying to defend Trump. You are just to dumb to understand that.


Some of us are actually trying to explain reality or what should be reality, to you.


If Trump is guilty, then give him the same treatment they gave Hillary for essentially the same crime. What is it about that reality you don't get?


Equal Justice under the Law! That is what reality should be. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

When a case is heard in a court room, you don't hear the judge say "Hey, I gave the guy last week 3 years, so I will give this guy 3 too."

Equal justice is a fair trial. Not the outcome or the sentence.

That is what is so crazy about Trumpites screaming about Hillary. Her case, if it had become a case, has nothing to do with Trump. Just politics as you adequately mentioned in other posts. Trumpites mired in aboutism.

I don't expect an attorney general to prosecute any of these cases.

Notice I didn't say anything about your intelligence level. Only you are intelligent enough to say things like that about others. Or that is what you believe.

As for your fellow Trumpite who posted right before you, is that satire to you ? Or what would you call it ?

... Then WHY did you do this thread??

#### Salty

RIP MANY you need an education

... Then WHY did you do this thread??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Why do you live in Pittsburgh ?

... Then WHY did you do this thread??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Why am I posting this photo ?

When a case is heard in a court room, you don't hear the judge say "Hey, I gave the guy last week 3 years, so I will give this guy 3 too."


Ah, in many court rooms, that is exactly what they say because discretion has been taken away from many state judges. Every crime must be treated the same whether it's first time or the 100th time. I think I heard about a guy in New York that has been arrested 146 times.


https://law.jrank.org/pages/6169/Dis...iscretion.html

At one time, the sentencing of those convicted of crimes was almost entirely within the discretion of judges. Judges could take into account various mitigating factors (circumstances reducing the degree of blame or fault attributed to the offender) and craft a punishment that most appropriately fit the crime. For example, a first-time petty offender convicted of shoplifting might be sentenced to PAROLE and community service.
With the implementation of Federal Sentencing Guidelines and with mandatory minimum sentencing legislation, which passed in both Congress and the states, judges no longer had the broad latitude to make the sentence fit the crime and the defendant. In some states, first-time offenders have been sent to jail for life for the possession of large amounts of controlled substances. Many federal judges must incarcerate parole violators for minor parole violations because the guidelines specifically direct them to and severely limit their sentencing choices. A judge's failure to abide by the sentencing guidelines in issuing a sentence would constitute an abuse of judicial discretion.

Equal justice is a fair trial. Not the outcome or the sentence.


There is some truth to that but if one person doesn't get "charged" while another does for the same crime, that is not equal justice. Nobody was talking about sentencing but rather charging or not charging.


That is what is so crazy about Trumpites screaming about Hillary. Her case, if it had become a case, has nothing to do with Trump. Just politics as you adequately mentioned in other posts. Trumpites mired in aboutism.


You just don't get it but that's OK, it's par for the course.


I don't expect an attorney general to prosecute any of these cases.

Notice I didn't say anything about your intelligence level.



Sure you did, you called me a genious and clever as I remember.


Only you are intelligent enough to say things like that about others. Or that is what you believe.


OK, it's always great when other people tell you what YOU believe.


As for your fellow Trumpite who posted right before you, is that satire to you ? Or what would you call it ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

I'd call it "his opinion" which we are all ( including you ) entitled to. What we should all be careful of and I'll use Captain Truth as an example, when we imply or out right say that something is the truth, ( the US has never been energy independent ) it shouldn't be a half truth or completly false. If one is going to repeat what actually happened and we can also add Vindman to this, tell the whole story that aid to Ukraine was held up but was released. People like Vindman will not acknowledge that the aid did go to Ukraine because it doesn't help his narrative of Trump.


And you never answered my question as to where you got the 5 years from since you never, ever supply your source for your so called information. I on the other hand gave you a reading of the law that called for no more than one, on one description of the crime and 3 years on another. Try providing a source for the information you post.

Are you saying all individuals are to receive the same sentence for the same crime, no matter their history ? Sure sounds like it.

Sounds like your memory is failing. Fortunately for you, you have learned to couch your statements as opposed to outright lying.

An Army Lieutenant Colonel that served in the Trump administration vs. a member of a hooker board that loves Trump...choose your source.

Still waiting for your advice to a member that just replies "if you say so" to 2000 posts and nothing else.

Mr. Whatsaboitism only ever has one argument. He’s incapable of actually discussing the point being made without wandering into “well X also did Y”. Were he a real man he’d just say Trump did it or Trump didn’t do it and explain his position. Then he’d explain that if Trump broke the law he should or shouldn’t be punished because this or that.

Instead what you’ll get are 90 lines of comparisons to Hillary, Obama, Democrats, AOC, CNN, MSM, and whatever/whomever else he’s in the mood to bitch and moan about with his red opinions.

It gets boring. You’ll see. I did and stopped engaging.

That's what the DPST filter, aka IGNORE, is for.

Unfortunately, most of the thoughtful conservative posters left here long time ago. Only the chaff remain, as evidenced by the logic of these arguments. They are uncomfortable debating. Unless you call heated mensroom graffiti sloganeering debating, in which case the unblinking Qberts and illiterate Trumpists are right at home.

I stopped engaging years ago. Before Trump. When the RWW's decided the clearest danger to democracy was gay marriage.

Today's "debaters" aren't even up to that level.

SMFHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Are you saying all individuals are to receive the same sentence for the same crime, no matter their history ? Sure sounds like it.


That's kinda the definition of a judge not having discretion!


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_discretion

Do judges have discretion?

Judicial discretion refers to a judge's power to make a decision based on his or her individualized evaluation, guided by the principles of law. Judicial discretion gives courts immense power which is exercised when legislature allows for it.

Sounds like your memory is failing. Fortunately for you, you have learned to couch your statements as opposed to outright lying.


Make up your mind. A minute ago you were calling me a liar and now you're back tracking saying I "couch" my statements as opposed to lying


An Army Lieutenant Colonel that served in the Trump administration vs. a member of a hooker board that loves Trump...choose your source.


A "NEVER TRUMPER" that served in the Trump administration. I tried to Google Vindman's back story about all the problems he encountered with Senior officers that came to light in the impeachment trial but it's all been scrubbed. I would thank the LC for his service but his motives involving Trump were not all they are cracked up to be but hey, you believe who you want to believe.


Still waiting for your advice to a member that just replies "if you say so" to 2000 posts and nothing else. Originally Posted by VitaMan

I understand his frustration. It's not my way of responding but I'm not the sheriff here. I also don't tend to criticize people who agree with me politically as you and everybody else on this board tends not to do. We tend to debate and argue with people who hold opposite views, which makes perfect since to me. I don't see you criticizing people on the left or did I just miss all those posts by you criticizing the Leftist?

That's what the DPST filter, aka IGNORE, is for.

Unfortunately, most of the thoughtful conservative posters left here long time ago. Only the chaff remain, as evidenced by the logic of these arguments. They are uncomfortable debating. Unless you call heated mensroom graffiti sloganeering debating, in which case the unblinking Qberts and illiterate Trumpists are right at home.

I stopped engaging years ago. Before Trump. When the RWW's decided the clearest danger to democracy was gay marriage.

Today's "debaters" aren't even up to that level.

SMFHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

But you’re still here. The king of Spam and so much more!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Whatsaboitism only ever has one argument. He’s incapable of actually discussing the point being made without wandering into “well X also did Y”. Were he a real man he’d just say Trump did it or Trump didn’t do it and explain his position. Then he’d explain that if Trump broke the law he should or shouldn’t be punished because this or that.

Instead what you’ll get are 90 lines of comparisons to Hillary, Obama, Democrats, AOC, CNN, MSM, and whatever/whomever else he’s in the mood to bitch and moan about with his red opinions.

It gets boring. You’ll see. I did and stopped engaging. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Excellent suggestion. I'll follow your lead and simply put you on ignore.


One last comment. It's pretty sad that somebody that says he is an officer of the law, doesn't understand the concept of equal justice under the law. I guess you missed my post where I said "IF" Trump did it, I haven't heard the testimony under oath yet like I heard with Hillary and I absolutely did explain my position. No need to respond, I won't see it.