Conservatives call for charges against Biden after Trump indictment

https://nypost.com/2023/03/31/gop-calls-for-biden-charges-after-trump-indictment/

Sometimes as in music and fashion, black Americans set the trend. Why should judicial be any different? Besides the ones above, I’d keep my eye on W. Virginia vs Hillary and the Russian Hoax.
Democrats to their credit have never claimed the high ground of anticipating unintended consequences.
So let her rip! “Lawfare is the new American way!” (No wonder everyone is starting to hate us. Prez. Dad is missing, Mom is stoned.)

 

great - throw all of the leaders of the 2 garbage corrupt parties in jail and try to start fresh. Can't be much worse than what he have had the past 30 years

 

Yet oddly enough we keep sending those bastards back. Why is that?

 

Since I rarely vote for incumbents, I would have no clue

 

Like nobody saw this coming?
I find it truly amazing that leftist like Bragg and is supporters, can't see past their hate for Trump. I could see charging a former president for real crimes if warranted but to dig up some 7 year old claim that was already passed over by the feds just to indict a political opponent isn't going to have the effect these people thinks it will.

When you heap on top of this, 7 years of hundreds of fake criminal claims and endless federal investigations that don't find anything to charge for, it becomes very clear what this is.

So from now to eternity, the gloves are off and both sides will be indicting their political opponents?
Welcome to Russia. They are getting exactly what they asked for.

 

Good, we can finally rid ourselves of the republican and democrat parties. Wretched hives of scum an villainy.

 

The tit for tat game. I left this type of game on the elementary playground back in the day.

So, what charges should Biden face? And remember, there is a special prosecutor in charge of Hunter AND Joe Biden's possible crimes here and is currently investigating.

 

Creative prosecutors can suss out state interests easily. Normally it is “ Oh well, the fed’s are handling it.” And then move on. Now it will be “Gimme everything you got on XYZ and their checkbooks.”
State AG’s are always eager to play the game hoping to gin up visibility for a Guv run.
It is the same game played for centuries that the FF’s tried to avoid. It kind of reminds me of the WSJ reporter jailed as a spy by Moscow last week.
This is a tar baby only liberal democrats want to own, because it is the future they are planning for you.

 

Why shouldn't a local DA try and find some crimes committed by Biden if it's good enough to do for Trump? That's how it works now we don't have to tell you what crimes or that any have been committed, we just get a dozen or so DA's from around the country to start subpoenaing records and putting people under the lights to get them to talk and turn people on people.

Hey welcome to leftwing justice and politics.

 

My opinion on an indictment for Biden is about the same as my opinion on an indictment for Trump. If they committed the crime they are being charged with, I support the indictment. If they did not, then I do not support it. As for the Trump indictment, I do not find it logical to give full support to any hot takes on the matter before we even know what the specific charges are, and what the evidence against him is.

While it's reasonable to ask questions, there is absolutely nothing reasonable about committing to any preconceived notions.

 

Are you saying that if you believed that there was potential charge against Biden you would have opposed it before the Trump indictment. I would have said if Biden broke the law then indict him. He is not above the law.

In fact most people have already been trying to convict his son for years now and Hunter is not even in politics. He is merely related to one. Isn't congress currently investigating other members of the Biden family? Let be honest do you think if Biden had retired after being VP the Hunter laptop or the congress investigation into his family would be taking place?

 

Until we get to read the actual indictment, we do not know what the charges are. That's not a new development, that's always how the justice system has worked. Furthermore, the District Attorney doesn't unilaterally make the call to indict someone. They have to present their evidence to a grand jury, and then the grand jury votes on if that evidence is significant enough to warrant an indictment.

A prosecutor can file their case, but there's no guarantee a grand jury would approve the indictment

 

so republican no longer believe you can't charge a sitting President

Trump screwed up, that is on him, get over it

do the crime, do the time

 

The difference being that Biden is now off limits while he's POTUS.... if I learned nothing else during the Trump regime (and I learned a smelly pantload about how to avoid accountability), I learned that...

If Joe broke any laws before or during being POTUS, which I find generally unlikely, the SOL can be tolled while he's in office and somebody can try when he's out in 2029.

 

I think we have a pretty good idea. If Bragg told the grand jury that he can prosecute Trump on a law for which the statue of limitations ended five years ago because Trump violated a federal campaign finance law, a violation for which Bragg has no jurisdiction, who was there to challenged that specious claim? The grand jury only has to vote in the majority and there were 25 people on it and we don't know what was the vote especially after all the delays and controversies at the end.

The proceedings have been leaked and we have heard of no other alleged crimes that we what we already know.

 

Or he can be impeached and removed so the prosecution can begin.

 

Trump wasn't a member of the political class, but you hate him. Are you sure you really hate "those bastards"?

 

He won't be president forever.

 

Democrats opened the door for retaliation. Obama got Lois Lerner to mess with conservative groups and nothing happened to her and the 5 specific hard drives that all failed at once and the back ups were somehow no good. The recently the IRS pairs a visit to the home of a reporter while he was testifying before congress. How many of you folks had a visit from the IRS?

Garland targeted parents but not Antifa. Democrats target cops but not illegals or criminals. With Trump they looked once, they looked twice and found nothing. Then two years after he leaves office, just As campaign season is heating up, they change the rules and go after him a third time.

If a conservative lies to congress or the FBI they go to jail. Clinton lied to both and nothing happened.

Campaign violations committed by Obama, Clinton and Newsom were settled with fines, Trump gets arrested.

Obama gives a publishing company a huge contract and in return he gets a $28 million dollar book deal. But if foreigners stay at Trump’s hotel….

Various government agencies gave Trump’s businesses a prostate exam trying to find wrong doing, yet with Biden the records, the laptop and the bank statements all are there to see and nothing happens.

Trump got two sham impeachments while Biden opened our southern border to millions of people and terrorists. He endangered national security and nothing.

Has anyone anywhere looked into Pelosi’s insider trading? Even AOC bitched about it when she first got elected and wanted a raise.

It’s about time democrats learn that if they want to do something conservatives can do the same thing, it’s called equity.

 

If there’s is any truth to the money that changed hands, Biden almost certainly didn’t pay taxes on it.

 

Biden has the best impeachment insurance equity can buy.

 

Years ago, most conservatives wanted accountability, now with Trump as their lead, now that isn't even necessary, but revenge is.

 

Oh.... fantastic..... MAGA is going to lecture us on tax avoidance...

Let me grab a chair and a Gatorade, then you can continue....

 

Lawfare only works in one direction, from the people who hold all of the institutional power, against those who don't. So Biden; none of the Bidens, are ever going to face any serious consequences.

 

According to your source (Rupert Murdoch's New York Post) "conservative legal experts," are morons:

WASHINGTON — Thursday’s indictment of former President Donald Trump has set a precedent enabling Republican prosecutors to seek criminal charges against President Biden, conservative legal experts told The Post Friday.
<End>

Indicting a former President, is not at all the same animal, as indicating a sitting President, and one need not have a legal degree, to see this difference. The only "legal expert"-- unless The Post considers sheriff Joe Arpaio one--who I saw quoted, though, was this guy:

<Snip>
“Republicans need to learn how to take off the gloves and put on the brass knuckles and break glass jaws — politically and legally, not physically,” Mike Davis, a former chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee and president of the Article III Project,* told The Post.
<End Snip>

So, maybe these "experts" aren't representative of all conservative minds; or perhaps, they generally are-- there's no way to know. It depends on how closely associated conservativism is, with radical partisanship. *The Article 3 Project, founded by Davis, has the goal, in order to prevent the "packing" of the Supreme Court with radical Left judges, of instead packing the Court with radical Right ones.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Article_III_Project







If I can use this forum to note my own, just modified, position, on the indictment, let me start by saying I have not been particularly interested in this case, so not paid it much attention. Having just heard, however, that DA Bragg's justification for the indictment-- tying it to a Federal charge, which was not prosecuted, since the statute of limitations has run out on the state charges-- I now am against this. I had previously thought that there was a firmer legal foundation, because I thought I'd remembered the NY State Assembly passing some legislation that would pause the statute of limitations on anyone, while serving as President, and so immune from indictment. As this now appears not to have been the case, it seems foolish to "stretch" the rules, in the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former President, for a not even particularly serious offense.

To be clear: no one is above the law, even for smaller infractions so, if the time had not expired, I would support the prosecution. As it is, though, this prosecution stands to do more harm to justice, than good for it, because there are other, more serious cases, which are still pending, and viable; and this relatively trivial matter, may well just get associated in the public mind, with the more important ones.