ADVERTISEMENT

Lib media still in meltdown over no collusion report

Yes, a court system has always been closely tied to totalitarianism, in some alternate universe I suppose. Anyway, thanks for the history lesson torchbearer.
No, the courts protect us from people that advocate your totalitarian system based on allegedly 'fighting X' (but catching everyone).

I have the same problem with gun control laws that are allegedly to stop criminals, but only make organized crime worse -- when organized crime is the problem in the first place, not law abiding citizens. The state of New York then covers up the statistics on its own laws.

Sigh ... you're arguing the courts should protect us when I'm arguing the courts are the 'last resort' that should never be involved, ideally. This whole Trump matter is a civics lesson in ways people like yourself fail to recognize is going to f' all of us.

Way to go!
 
No, the courts protect us from people that advocate your totalitarian system based on allegedly 'fighting X' (but catching everyone).

I have the same problem with gun control laws that are allegedly to stop criminals, but only make organized crime worse -- when organized crime is the problem in the first place, not law abiding citizens. The state of New York then covers up the statistics on its own laws.

Sigh ... you're arguing the courts should protect us when I'm arguing the courts are the 'last resort' that should never be involved, ideally. This whole Trump matter is a civics lesson in ways people like yourself fail to recognize is going to f' all of us.

Way to go!

Determining if states can prosecute for the same crime even though there is a federal pardon is a perfectly valid discussion and legal argument. It is obviously a state's rights argument. Should a federal pardon supercede a state prosecution? It is a Perfectly valid question that the courts should probably decide. But, you already told me the courts had decided this, so I am still waiting for you to provide us with the information on those cases.
 
Determining if states can prosecute for the same crime even though there is a federal pardon is a perfectly valid discussion, for two reasons. It is obviously a state's rights argument.
I love how Progressives now try to use 'states rights' to 'deny civil liberties.' "Ohhh, it only applies if they are a minority or Democrat."

Should a federal pardon supercede a state prosecution?
Only if they are registered Democratic Party or represent a 'protected group.'

Seriously, I cannot believe the double-speak in the US media today, or from people like yourself.

It is a Perfectly valid question that the courts should probably decide. But, you already told me the courts had decided this, so I am still waiting for you to provide us with the information on those cases.
Well this should make you happy then ...
Simply put, although the SCOTUS has slowly been 'chipping away at this,' most judges and state law boards have not been kind in lawyers that pull this at all, regardless.

Welcome to the world you have created. While the ACLU argues one direction, people like yourself argue about undoing all of the protections. Great job! I do NOT want to live in your world.

Now for a more impartial view ...
The problem is, laws have been expanding at such great velocities that people could be prosecuted for multiple things in multiple places. It used to be they didn't overlap.
 
Last edited:
This whole posts says a bunch of nothing. And yes, we get it, you are a libertarian, you don't have to point that out constantly. Anyway, Have a good day carrying the torch or whatever.

Yeah, you're new around here. Clearly, his therapist is on vacation and he's trying to work out his new problems in the interim.
 
Yeah, you're new around here. Clearly, his therapist is on vacation and he's trying to work out his new problems in the interim.
And yet, you utterly disregard the argument, and make it about me ... yet again. I'll at least give @Cubs79 some credit for taking a position on what we're talking about, even if I think he's advocating for totalitarian implementations of law, he is at least debating me on that point.

I could care less if Trump's cronies go to jail. What scares me is people tearing down barriers to prosecuting everyone because of Trump and his cronies. The ACLU and others have been pointing this out for years, and now -- suddenly, the alleged 'enlightened' among us (Progressives) see a reason to favor more law and prosecutions.

Which is my general issue with Progressives overall -- laws should apply maximus to Conservatives, but in the end, it's really all of us. Everything is getting banned, careers are being ruined, people are being prosecuted in ways we separated from the British for, etc... Before 2006 I feared Conservative attitudes more. Since I've started to fear Progressive attitudes more.
 
I love how Progressives now try to use 'states rights' to 'deny civil liberties.' "Ohhh, it only applies if they are a minority or Democrat."

Only if they are registered Democratic Party or represent a 'protected group.'

Seriously, I cannot believe the double-speak in the US media today, or from people like yourself.

Well this should make you happy then ...
Simply put, although the SCOTUS has slowly been 'chipping away at this,' most judges and state law boards have not been kind in lawyers that pull this at all, regardless.

Welcome to the world you have created. While the ACLU argues one direction, people like yourself argue about undoing all of the protections. Great job! I do NOT want to live in your world.

Yet, since 1922, the Supreme Court has undermined this clause with an exception that allows state and federal prosecutors to bring separate charges for the same alleged crime. As a result, people can be prosecuted twice for the same offense — so long as the prosecutors are from separate “sovereigns.”

So, precedent actually states just the opposite you said, and Gamble Vs the United States has yet to be decided. It might end up being decided the way you see it, but as of this point that hasn't been precedent. Your own links establishes that.

And dude, we know you don't like progressives. We don't need the dramatics in every post when we are simply discussing a topic, and then 3/4s of your post ends being where you tell us about how progressives have failed you or any of the other dramatic nonsense. It makes your posts long and almost unreadable. Just stick to the actual topic.
 
Yet, since 1922, the Supreme Court has undermined this clause with an exception that allows state and federal prosecutors to bring separate charges for the same alleged crime. As a result, people can be prosecuted twice for the same offense — so long as the prosecutors are from separate “sovereigns.”

So, precedent actually states just the opposite you said, and Gamble v. US has yet to be decided. It might end up being decided the way you see it, but as of this point that hasn't been precedent. Your own links establishes that.
Yes, that's what I was saying. It'd make you proud. Good job! Which brings me to my point ... judges and bar association are another. Why?

State laws has expanded into federal, and federal law has expanded into state. They used to not overlap, like back in 1922. But it's now nearly 100 years later, and we have passed laws to the point you cannot commit a crime without it being prosecuted by both state and federal. Heck, Idaho just repealed their entire code because it's become so bad!

The bar association has been debating this for years, and asking prosecutors to 'watch it.' But they've 'pushed the line' once again, forcing things like Gamble v. US.

And dude, we know you don't like progressives. We don't need the dramatics in every post when we are simply discussing a topic, and then 3/4s of your post ends being where you tell us about how progressives have failed you or any of the other dramatic nonsense. It makes your posts long and almost unreadable. Just stick to the actual topic.
Just face it ... if it ensnares Republicans, you want it. It's why 'criminal reform' is low on the Progressive agenda now, even as the Republicans -- let alone Trump -- are pushing for it. You also don't like it because it makes Bill Clinton 'look bad,' just like Hillary Clinton looked bad when #metoo started (and was 'pushed back' ... luckily she lost, so #metoo was able to start).

The problem is ... this is something that ensnares the rest of the country, everyday people. You want more laws, more bannings, more everything. You're entire attitude is NeoProg, leading to the totalitarian state. It's like being in Germany, watching the Communists argue against the Fascists, when the Communists have killed far more people, and destroyed far more families. I don't support the Fascists, but like in your world, the Communists are far worse.

That's why attitudes like yours scare me to death. You literally want to destroy civil liberties, right when we're on the cusp of restoring them. But it favors Trump ... so forget it ... right?

Why can't we have laws that hold politicians accountable ... without f'ing over anyone who doesn't fit the 'political corrections' of the US Media and Progressives? You piss on civil liberties, and then use civics in the opposite direction they were intended.
 
Yes, that's what I was saying. It'd make you proud. Good job! Which brings me to my point ... judges and bar association are another. Why?

State laws has expanded into federal, and federal law has expanded into state. They used to not overlap, like back in 1922. But it's now nearly 100 years later, and we have passed laws to the point you cannot commit a crime without it being prosecuted by both state and federal. Heck, Idaho just repealed their entire code because it's become so bad!

The bar association has been debating this for years, and asking prosecutors to 'watch it.' But they've 'pushed the line' once again, forcing things like Gamble v. US.

Just face it ... if it ensnares Republicans, you want it. It's why 'criminal reform' is low on the Progressive agenda now, even as the Republicans -- let alone Trump -- are pushing for it. You also don't like it because it makes Bill Clinton 'look bad,' just like Hillary Clinton looked bad when #metoo started (and was 'pushed back' ... luckily she lost, so #metoo was able to start).

The problem is ... this is something that ensnares the rest of the country, everyday people. You want more laws, more bannings, more everything. You're entire attitude is NeoProg, leading to the totalitarian state. It's like being in Germany, watching the Communists argue against the Fascists, when the Communists have killed far more people, and destroyed far more families. I don't support the Fascists, but like in your world, the Communists are far worse.

That's why attitudes like yours scare me to death. You literally want to destroy civil liberties, right when we're on the cusp of restoring them. But it favors Trump ... so forget it ... right?

Why can't we have laws that hold politicians accountable ... without f'ing over anyone who doesn't fit the 'political corrections' of the US Media and Progressives? You piss on civil liberties, and then use civics in the opposite direction they were intended.

Your posts are all over the place, long, and overly dramatic, and honestly it's just difficult to have a discussion with you. I have no issues with you disagreeing with me on things, often times those can end up being the best discussions. But, your posts are just too scattered for me. So have a good one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnighttimeJoe
Your posts are all over the place, long, and overly dramatic, and honestly it's just difficult to have a discussion with you. I have no issues with you disagreeing with me on things, often times those can end up being the best discussions. But, your posts are just too scattered for me. So have a good one.
At least you engaged me on the subject, for that, I thank you. And yes, I tie many things in. I see civil rights as a bigger issue with many interconnections.

E.g., the way people and, worse yet, politicians attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose and a citizen's right to self-defense are both Unconstitutional since a supermajority of Americans support both, let alone there is not a Supermajority who want them overturned (which is required for a Constitutional Amendment).
 
Your posts are all over the place, long, and overly dramatic, and honestly it's just difficult to have a discussion with you. I have no issues with you disagreeing with me on things, often times those can end up being the best discussions. But, your posts are just too scattered for me. So have a good one.

It's really not worth it. Dude is a bot who can't shit out anything other than "I'm a libertarian," "We libertarians," "Progressives!!!!!" "That's why imma Libertarian," blah blah blah. Rinse, repeat, recycle. Completely and totally pathetic failure.
 
your reading comprehension is terrible. i ask for something very specific. i didnt ask for cringe worth examples. i asked for criminal behavior that is able to be prosecuted. can you please provide me page and line numbers. the report is long and i dont have the time.

seriously one has to wonder how people like you can continue to ignore the conclusion of the report. and no i dont mean barr's summary conclusion. he definitely added his own spin to it. please re-read the conclusion to the report. then consider building a bridge and get over it.

didnt you just start a thread about having a lazy team view of politics. yea lol at that.
Shook people with TDS dont care about facts. It is all about making themselves feel important which is why they will lose in 2020 bigly
 
Holy mommy fcking shiite. This is the best thread ever for so many reasons.


1. We've been force fed the idea that trump colluded with the Russians for 2 years, but now all of a sudden collusion isnt a crime.

2. The investigation was supposed to determine whether Russia interfered with our election (duh, they did) and only one candidates campaign was investigated in earnest to determine whether there was collusion, but now that we know they didn't it amazingly isnt a crime anyway.

3. Now we are supposed to accept the idea that Trump's people are guilty of obstruction of justice in an investigation into something that isnt a crime.

Jesus almighty, this is just the best.
You cant make this stuff up if you tried. Honestly though, the media is such a powerful voice for the democrat party that they literally can spit out a fake story knowing that it will gain traction with their base and the debunking of said story will have far less impact
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
ADVERTISEMENT