Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Always Above the Law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    There is a valid reason why presidents have immunity, and there is a legal process to follow if they actual break the laws. Ask Nixon.

    Of curse, you avoided mentioning any of Obama's rimes against the Constitution which he swore an oath to uphold and defend, or his dirty dealings with foreign nations like Iran, or anything at all about the Clinton's against whom there is a mountain of evidence, so... if you won't prosecute your won, you can't prosecute anyone else, either. The precedents have been set by the Democrats, who steadfastly refuse to even deal with crimes within their own ranks.

    "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
    I do not see any "valid" immunity of any president who breaks the law. The legal process from what we heard is that the DOJ cannot charge a sitting president. So, the only process that is left as a defense of the republic from a crook in the WH is the political process. Good luck with that...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by C6.Jake View Post

    ODS. This thread isn't about Obama or any President for that matter.
    I was relating it to "It's good to be king" for obvious reasons. Howver, you are correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • C6.Jake
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Funny...that's what BoBo and Michelle are saying as they spend their many millions.
    ODS. This thread isn't about Obama or any President for that matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • C6.Jake
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...164875612.html

    The original article appears to be misleading. The search and seizure were legal what happened afterwards is a separate issue.
    What happened afterwards is the point of the original article.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    What only in CA?

    We saw a similar type of thinking with the president's immunity from prosecution. Replace the cop with Trump doing the same thing, and you will have Mueller and the DOJ tell you that they cannot conclude if the president violated the law or not.
    There is a valid reason why presidents have immunity, and there is a legal process to follow if they actual break the laws. Ask Nixon.

    Of curse, you avoided mentioning any of Obama's rimes against the Constitution which he swore an oath to uphold and defend, or his dirty dealings with foreign nations like Iran, or anything at all about the Clinton's against whom there is a mountain of evidence, so... if you won't prosecute your won, you can't prosecute anyone else, either. The precedents have been set by the Democrats, who steadfastly refuse to even deal with crimes within their own ranks.

    "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    I don't like forfeiture laws because they lead to abuse. In this case the DA should have pursued the criminal charges or returned the evidence. It is a lot like plea bargains in so far as they should be the exception not the rule. If the courts are overburdened them charges should be dropped without prejudice and any evidence collected turned over to "ambulance chasers" . You cannot be innocent until proven guilty if the process is the punishment. Unequal justice is not just cases like Clinton where who you are determines how your case is handled but also how those with less financial resources cannot receive equal representation and accept forfeiture or plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.

    Very few people seem to actually agree that it is better that 9 guilty individuals go free rather than 1 innocent person be falsely convicted. We have become weak and we constantly trade freedom for security. People must accept responsibility for their own security because relying on the government always turns into tyranny of one sort or the other. In the above case over regulation by the government made criminals out of people who operated unlicensed gambling. It should be the responsibility of individuals to avoid such unsecured operations. If people are too stupid to care for themselves we are doomed anyway.
    I agree up to a point, especially concerning the forfeiture business.

    As for protecting the single innocent party, I'm not so convinced having seen a lot of the inside workings of the so-called "justice system" and its Machiavellian approach to the law. And out here in Colorado back country, the political machinations of the County Sherriff's department have to be seen to be believed.

    It's pretty hard these days to truly define the term "innocent" in any realistic and relevant sense.

    That being said, I would not to be that "innocent" party myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    ...I stand corrected...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    "It's good to be king." - Harvey Korman in Mel Brooks' HISTORY of the WORLD PART II
    That was Mel Brooks.



    You're thinking of the Count De Monet.



    Never gets old . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    I don't like forfeiture laws because they lead to abuse. In this case the DA should have pursued the criminal charges or returned the evidence. It is a lot like plea bargains in so far as they should be the exception not the rule. If the courts are overburdened them charges should be dropped without prejudice and any evidence collected turned over to "ambulance chasers" . You cannot be innocent until proven guilty if the process is the punishment. Unequal justice is not just cases like Clinton where who you are determines how your case is handled but also how those with less financial resources cannot receive equal representation and accept forfeiture or plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.

    Very few people seem to actually agree that it is better that 9 guilty individuals go free rather than 1 innocent person be falsely convicted. We have become weak and we constantly trade freedom for security. People must accept responsibility for their own security because relying on the government always turns into tyranny of one sort or the other. In the above case over regulation by the government made criminals out of people who operated unlicensed gambling. It should be the responsibility of individuals to avoid such unsecured operations. If people are too stupid to care for themselves we are doomed anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...164875612.html

    The original article appears to be misleading. The search and seizure were legal what happened afterwards is a separate issue.
    This gives a bigger picture which makes more sense.

    I noticed that first the police officer was arrested on unrelated charges and convicted, so the theory that the DA somehow protects crooked police officers falls apart

    Then you have the issue that this is a civil case, and it is quite possible that the argument was that EVEN if the officers stole such money (which seems that it was a claim by the plaintiffs and we do not know if it is true or not), the plaintiffs still do not have a right to sue and ask for restitution.

    Then at some point the article mentions that the police officers DID find illegal gambling machines. So, the fact that there were no charges was perhaps a result of a deal where the DA dropped charges and the people involved agreed to the confiscation of the cash?

    If that is a case, then I do not see how the plaintiffs can claim that the constitution protects their confiscated wealth.
    Last edited by pamak; 23 Sep 19, 18:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...164875612.html

    The original article appears to be misleading. The search and seizure were legal what happened afterwards is a separate issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    "It's good to be king." - Harvey Korman in Mel Brooks' HISTORY of the WORLD PART II
    Funny...that's what BoBo and Michelle are saying as they spend their many millions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    "It's good to be king." - Harvey Korman in Mel Brooks' HISTORY of the WORLD PART II

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    What only in CA?

    We saw a similar type of thinking with the president's immunity from prosecution. Replace the cop with Trump doing the same thing, and you will have Mueller and the DOJ tell you that they cannot conclude if the president violated the law or not.
    You mean the immunity of people like Norton, the Clintons, Obama, Omar, Cortez and the rest of the criminal Democratic Rat Pack? Try not to let your TDS run away with you. It makes you look prejudiced.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Only in Cuckoo California!

    Of course, the criminals' word can be taken as fact...
    What only in CA?

    We saw a similar type of thinking with the president's immunity from prosecution. Replace the cop with Trump doing the same thing, and you will have Mueller and the DOJ tell you that they cannot conclude if the president violated the law or not.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X