Winetroll still posting about Trump poor fella
Winetroll still posting about Trump poor fella
You think, Blakehole?
Weaponizing the law is what totalitarians do.
Who else would prosecute "political opponent"?
I'm old enough to recall when it was considered improper for US President to say anything about DOJ/LE investigations besides "I have confidence in the investigative process, I have no further comment until it is done"
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-13-2020 at 05:32 PM.
Spurtacular: do you see any problem at all with a President pressuring the AG to prosecute his political opponents?
If they're corrupt?
No.
Corrupt according to whom?
Of course you don't.
All the president has to do is call his opponents corrupt and sic his AG on them. It's a classic authoritarian tactic, it works everytime an in bent fears a close election or can't steal it.
So, you would rather have a president turning a blind eye to corruption.
I just said if they're corrupt. You seriously need to stop turning everything into 20 questions.
This is why you're the board nuisance.
So then, in your view it's legit for POTUS to declare his opponents corrupt and direct the DOJ to prosecute them?
But who determines that beforehand so you'd be OK with it?
If corrupt. Corruption can come out in any number of ways. Why do you insist on stupid rabbit holes?
the concern being a system whereby the sitting president can just declare his belief that individuals x, y, and z are corrupt, and those statements alone are enough to trigger investigations by the AG
that is ripe for corruption/abuse
Like when Obama sicked his IRS dogs on everyone? Except in those cases he didn't even have to believe they were corrupt.
Like what? Determined by whom?
What is your proof Obama ordered that?
IRS was investigated by the Treasurer Department OIG, Congress, and the DOJ
not aware any of them tied anything to obama but you can prove me wrong
I'm not litigating years' old issues for you, ankle biter.
And found that the targeting was prevalent. What's your point?
You brought it up.
Now you're folding.
You have no proof because there is none.
You simply lied.
into both liberal and conservative groups, nothing tying back to obama... which was the key component of the claim you made as it relates to potential top down corruption/abuse like we were talking about
Muh Obama wouldn't do that
Scandal free, after all
lol derp
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)