Democrats set sights on arresting, charging, extraditing President Trump

Laws should be applied equally, right?

If you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem.

 

Two times the congress tried to convict Trump. Two times they failed.

 

So does that mean you are in favor of Trump being investigated? If so, why don't you just say it?

 

The Constitution says you need evidence of a crime before sending the Gestapo to rape people looking for a crime.

I know you support that with respect to Trump, but many of us still like the Constitution, even if you're not able to understand what it says.

 

You are still evading. The reason you investigate is BECAUSE you need evidence. Are you or are you not opposed to Trump being investigated?

A question that should be easy to answer...

 

There's no evasion. You liberals need to prove there was a crime before sending the Gestapo to raid people's homes.

Burn of proof, dude, is ALL YOURS, lol.

Which is part of the reasons real Americans hate the new Nazi tendencies of the left in America today.

 

They want to find a way to put him under extradition. Florida law doesn't necessarily grant extradition but other state laws would so what they are trying to do is cage him so he cannot hold rallies outside of Florida.

 

Show me the man and I will show you the crime. Very Stalinist. You need to have an alleged crime to investigate. You don't just investigate because you fear their political power.

 

How would anybody prove there's a crime without investigating?

Say it! Say that you favor investigating Trump, or that you DON'T favor investigating him.

Whatever your answer is, it would appear that you are embarrassed by it. Is that the case? Am I embarrassing you? I just need to know because that would be against forum rules, and I don't want to be in violation.

 

Easy, you find evidence of a crime. Like, "hey, my car was parked here and now it's missing. I'm not saying anyone specific did it, but I think there is a crime that occurred here."

This is not rocket science. But, alas, I'm not surprised that's over your head.

 

What do you think the word "investigate" means?

It means "find evidence". Now, do you or do you not oppose investigating to see if there is or there is not evidence linking Trump to the many crimes he might or might not be involved in? (most of which are listed in my "Trump crime" sheet, that you know so well)

This question is so easy to answer. I can't believe you're having such a hard time with it.

DoubleThink won't save your intellectual honesty in this case, you should know.

 

What do you think "probable cause" means?

 

It means that somebody has been investigated and evidence has been found that they could be guilty. There has NEVER been "probable cause" against anybody before they have been investigated.

See how direct questions are answered when asked to somebody who knows what they're talking about?

Now... your turn: Should Trump be investigated or not to find out if there is probable cause against him for his actions. Most of which he has done publicly, or have been made public by his own appointees and allies?

 

Wrong. Waaaaaaaaaay wrong.

Where's your probable cause - PRIOR to any investigation of Trump?

 

"Democrats set sights on arresting, charging, extraditing President Trump"

no, we just want justice done and are watching to see what happens, let the DA and Investigators do their job

 

The prosecutor in NY, like a good Gestapo member, said she’d investigate Trump until she found a crime. Shameful.

 

link to her quote

 

Oh Dear God! Are you serious???

First of all, there is an enormous amount of probable cause against Trump for his criminal activities. But that's irrelevant to the discussion at this level! You need probable cause to do a search or to prosecute. Not to investigate! I'm embarrassed that I would even need to explain this to you.

You're clearly just trying to dodge the obvious by feigning ignorance.

It's sad that there are now so many people, outside of religion, who would sacrifice themselves by looking foolish just to protect "The Leader"

Anyway.. now we know where you stand in respect to "objectivity". Which is in the lowest end of the scale.

 

You need evidence of a crime to investigate someone. Probable cause. Duh.

 

Well I learned something which will be a nice tidbit if I ever go down there. Do not use 'gin' around Australians.

 

NO you do not. You need probable cause for a warrant, to arrest or hold someone in custody. You need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk or briefly detain because those actions each involve a compromise on your physical freedom or your property access. You need zero, zip in order to investigate. Police can talk to anyone they want, ask anything they want and document all they want as long as they do not search, seize, impede on your physical liberty.

 

You need probable cause to investigate someone. You need evidence of a crime. We don't just go investigating people looking for any possible crimes they might have committed. Because, this isn't Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

And by investigate, we're talking about exactly that - unreasonable searches and seizures of people's private property. Sometimes, based on nothing more than an illegally obtained FISA warrant, as we found out under Obama's DOJ.

 

Well you can do a hell of a lot of investigating without ever directly contacting the subject, or searching any of his property or seizing anything. Preliminary investigations talk to other people, look at their documents and evidence (with their permission), look at public records, at abandoned property, and build probable cause. Normally you don't want the target to know they are even in being looked at so they can't cover their tracks. You get to do all that on a mere hunch. there is no constitutional standard to investigate.

 

Right, perhaps, but what Democrats have in mind is subpoenaing tax records, for instance, without any probable cause to do so.
Or reading his emails or other communications based on an illegal FISA warrant.

That's how Democrat prosecutors do it. They know they don't like Trump, so they'll waste all kinds of resources, and even break some laws to "investigate" a person instead of a crime.

Don't have a clue what the crime is, but they'll find one! Stalin would be proud.

 

The "who" is totally irrelevant.

Any attorney providing zealous representation for their client will -- in accordance with the Canon of Ethics -- motion for a change of venue.

And you did what, a 3 second internet search?

National Benefit Programs, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Case No. 2:09-cv-1156 (S.D. Ohio May. 17, 2010)

OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE SMITH, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff National Benefit Programs, Inc. ("NBP") filed a memorandum in opposition, and ESI filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion to transfer.

Gosh....it took me a whole 2 seconds to find that.