Red Mosquito

Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Can't the deep state just poison his hamberder? Problem solved.

BurtReynolds wrote:Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Not that I've seen. I thought this was all hypothetical.

And I agree, which is why, even though the man deserves to be prosecuted for his many, many, many, many crimes, and Norris is right that letting him get away with it is perhaps even a more dangerous precedent to set, I believe no one is going to prosecute him federally.

State prosecution is another matter. There is plenty to indicate that NY may have intent to charge him.

epilogue wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Not that I've seen. I thought this was all hypothetical.

And I agree, which is why, even though the man deserves to be prosecuted for his many, many, many, many crimes, and Norris is right that letting him get away with it is perhaps even a more dangerous precedent to set, I believe no one is going to prosecute him federally.

State prosecution is another matter. There is plenty to indicate that NY may have intent to charge him.

I think he needs to be charged for everything possible so we can all learn from this absurd shit stain that will forever be in our history books.

Speaking of which, isn't it great that the south now has a new racist loser that they can build statues of?! Wouldn't want to erase the history of this grifter.

epilogue wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Not that I've seen. I thought this was all hypothetical.

And I agree, which is why, even though the man deserves to be prosecuted for his many, many, many, many crimes, and Norris is right that letting him get away with it is perhaps even a more dangerous precedent to set, I believe no one is going to prosecute him federally.

State prosecution is another matter. There is plenty to indicate that NY may have intent to charge him.

I don’t think that will happen either. Trump has a very powerful card left to play that will likely allow him to avoid prosecution.

Never knew we had so many legal experts on RM.

Bi_3 wrote:

epilogue wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Not that I've seen. I thought this was all hypothetical.

And I agree, which is why, even though the man deserves to be prosecuted for his many, many, many, many crimes, and Norris is right that letting him get away with it is perhaps even a more dangerous precedent to set, I believe no one is going to prosecute him federally.

State prosecution is another matter. There is plenty to indicate that NY may have intent to charge him.

I don’t think that will happen either. Trump has a very powerful card left to play that will likely allow him to avoid prosecution.

Which would be what?

wease wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

epilogue wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Not that I've seen. I thought this was all hypothetical.

And I agree, which is why, even though the man deserves to be prosecuted for his many, many, many, many crimes, and Norris is right that letting him get away with it is perhaps even a more dangerous precedent to set, I believe no one is going to prosecute him federally.

State prosecution is another matter. There is plenty to indicate that NY may have intent to charge him.

I don’t think that will happen either. Trump has a very powerful card left to play that will likely allow him to avoid prosecution.

Which would be what?

If he goes full Hitler I'll be so disappointed.

tragabigzanda wrote:Never knew we had so many legal experts on RM.

we have no legal experts on RM

Chris_H_2 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Never knew we had so many legal experts on RM.

we have no legal experts on RM

Yes we have no legal experts...

Or

Legal experts?! We don't need no legal experts!

Were the only acceptable responses, Chris. Please step it up.

Bi_3 wrote:

epilogue wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Is there any indication that anyone intends to charge him with anything?

Maybe the elites will try to make an example out of him, but I'm thinking that imprisoning an ex president isn't a precedent they want to set, especially with his ravenous fans.

Not that I've seen. I thought this was all hypothetical.

And I agree, which is why, even though the man deserves to be prosecuted for his many, many, many, many crimes, and Norris is right that letting him get away with it is perhaps even a more dangerous precedent to set, I believe no one is going to prosecute him federally.

State prosecution is another matter. There is plenty to indicate that NY may have intent to charge him.

I don’t think that will happen either. Trump has a very powerful card left to play that will likely allow him to avoid prosecution.

I'm not saying it's likely. I tend to agree that he'll avoid persecution altogether. Just saying the more likely path of the two is state, not federal.

progressive anti-colonialists never appreciated what they had in him

Seems applicable:

On his recent retirement, for instance, Jim Jeffrey, the State Department’s special representative for Syria engagement, offered a revelation. When the president finally began acting to “end” America’s forever wars in December 2018 by demanding that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Syria -- Secretary of Defense Mattis would resign over that order -- he was convinced to leave behind a relatively small number of them, 200, as the withdrawal proceeded. Or so the president came to believe at least (and so it was reported at the time). But Jeffrey now informs us that “there was never a Syria withdrawal” at all. The full contingent of perhaps 900 American troops evidently remains there to this day. The president’s top officials simply lied to him (and assumedly the media) on the subject. As Jeffrey put it, “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.”

96583UP wrote:progressive anti-colonialists never appreciated what they had in him

As with everything he's ever done:

It was a lie.

did you order the code red on santiago?

elliseamos wrote:Seems applicable:

On his recent retirement, for instance, Jim Jeffrey, the State Department’s special representative for Syria engagement, offered a revelation. When the president finally began acting to “end” America’s forever wars in December 2018 by demanding that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Syria -- Secretary of Defense Mattis would resign over that order -- he was convinced to leave behind a relatively small number of them, 200, as the withdrawal proceeded. Or so the president came to believe at least (and so it was reported at the time). But Jeffrey now informs us that “there was never a Syria withdrawal” at all. The full contingent of perhaps 900 American troops evidently remains there to this day. The president’s top officials simply lied to him (and assumedly the media) on the subject. As Jeffrey put it, “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.”

Should we be excited that the military is disregarding civilian leadership or nah?

96583UP wrote:did you order the code red on santiago?

I did the job you sent me to do!

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Seems applicable:

On his recent retirement, for instance, Jim Jeffrey, the State Department’s special representative for Syria engagement, offered a revelation. When the president finally began acting to “end” America’s forever wars in December 2018 by demanding that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Syria -- Secretary of Defense Mattis would resign over that order -- he was convinced to leave behind a relatively small number of them, 200, as the withdrawal proceeded. Or so the president came to believe at least (and so it was reported at the time). But Jeffrey now informs us that “there was never a Syria withdrawal” at all. The full contingent of perhaps 900 American troops evidently remains there to this day. The president’s top officials simply lied to him (and assumedly the media) on the subject. As Jeffrey put it, “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.”

Should we be excited that the military is disregarding civilian leadership or nah?

No. My point was that what he says is continually worthless.

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Seems applicable:

On his recent retirement, for instance, Jim Jeffrey, the State Department’s special representative for Syria engagement, offered a revelation. When the president finally began acting to “end” America’s forever wars in December 2018 by demanding that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Syria -- Secretary of Defense Mattis would resign over that order -- he was convinced to leave behind a relatively small number of them, 200, as the withdrawal proceeded. Or so the president came to believe at least (and so it was reported at the time). But Jeffrey now informs us that “there was never a Syria withdrawal” at all. The full contingent of perhaps 900 American troops evidently remains there to this day. The president’s top officials simply lied to him (and assumedly the media) on the subject. As Jeffrey put it, “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.”

Should we be excited that the military is disregarding civilian leadership or nah?

No. My point was that what he says is continually worthless.

This should have been under his purview and could have been done, but for military intransigence.

Surely there are better examples of him lying.