Buck: ‘I won’t support a convicted felon for the White House’

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Me neither!

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) said he would not support a convicted felon for president, as former President Trump faces an arraignment on federal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified and sensitive documents after his administration ended.

Buck told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview Tuesday that the public will need to see how the evidence for the case against Trump is presented and what Trump’s defense is, but he would not “feel comfortable” supporting someone who has been convicted of a felony for president.

“If he is convicted of these charges of mishandling this information, of knowingly concealing his actions, I don’t think — I certainly won’t support a convicted felon for the White House,” he said.

Buck’s comment came before Trump made his first appearance in federal court in Miami, having been indicted on 37 counts related to his keeping classified and sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Fla.

Most of the charges Trump is facing are for willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. Other counts he is facing include conspiracy to obstruct justice, concealing a document in a federal investigation and making false statements and representations.

Republicans have been somewhat split in their reactions to Trump’s indictment in the days following the news that he would become the first former president to be charged with federal crimes. Some have criticized Trump’s conduct in allegedly keeping the documents in various places around Mar-a-Lago — including a bathroom — while others have accused the Justice Department of political motivation in going after Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/buck-won-t-support-convicted-184650143.html

​
f6728d13cb75edb1601692202ae2e7d0.jpg
 
signalmankenneth said:
Me neither!

[FONT=&]Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) said he would not support a convicted felon for president, as former President Trump faces an arraignment on federal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified and sensitive documents after his administration ended.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Buck told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview Tuesday that the public will need to see how the evidence for the case against Trump is presented and what Trump’s defense is, but he would not “feel comfortable” supporting someone who has been convicted of a felony for president.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“If he is convicted of these charges of mishandling this information, of knowingly concealing his actions, I don’t think — I certainly won’t support a convicted felon for the White House,” he said.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Buck’s comment came before Trump made his first appearance in federal court in Miami, having been indicted on 37 counts related to his keeping classified and sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Fla.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Most of the charges Trump is facing are for willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. Other counts he is facing include conspiracy to obstruct justice, concealing a document in a federal investigation and making false statements and representations.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Republicans have been somewhat split in their reactions to Trump’s indictment in the days following the news that he would become the first former president to be charged with federal crimes. Some have criticized Trump’s conduct in allegedly keeping the documents in various places around Mar-a-Lago — including a bathroom — while others have accused the Justice Department of political motivation in going after Trump.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]https://www.yahoo.com/news/buck-won-t-support-convicted-184650143.html

[/FONT]​
f6728d13cb75edb1601692202ae2e7d0.jpg
Click to expand...

Trumps not a convicted felon
 
The outcome of any of the many pending trials, indictments, prosecutions, that Trump is now facing, will not move the needle on the support for Donald Trump.

It is true that about 75 million Americans support Donald Trump. But, it is only because these 75 million Americans do not care that Donald Trump is an habitual liar, or that he breaks the law, or that he abuses his power of office, or that he corrupts everything and everyone he touches, or that he is unfit for public service of any kind.

In fact, because Donald Trump is so morally, and ethically inept, and that he will do anything to seek power, is the ONE MAIN THING that makes him so popular with his cult following.

Donald Trump has only one reason to run for president again, and that is to either be able to pardon himself for all of his charges against him, or to hope for a pardon, by whoever Republican should win the election.

But here is the deal, Donald and his 75 million deplorable Cultists will not be able to win the general election.

And because they are 75 million strong, there is no chance for any other Republican contender to be able to beat him out of the primary election.

Biden clearly won the 2020 election with only 80 million votes. And most people that voted for Biden voted for him as a non-vote for Donald Trump. Had Biden not won the primary, any of the other contenders could have won against Donald Trump. Because these 80 million voters were actually just saying NO! Hell NO! Fuck NO! ANYONE BUT DONALD TRUMP!

It's simple math and simple explanations for everything here. IT'S JUST SIMPLE MATH that most any 5th grader understands.

So, the Republican party is in much worse shape than they have yet to understand.

They have put themselves into a no win situation again.
 
Last edited:
If Buck doesn’t support Trump and starts voting democrat then his constituents will toss him out

So I have no idea what he means about not supporting Trump

Is he gonna skip his birthday party or something?
 
I would hate to be the lawyers who's job is to pick the jury selection here

I don't think the facts matter nearly as much as the makeup of the jury pool
 
zymurgy said:
I would hate to be the lawyers who's job is to pick the jury selection here

I don't think the facts matter nearly as much as the makeup of the jury pool
Click to expand...

I doubt if it will even go to trial since no laws were broken

It’s just another show hit job by the democrats
 
Yakuda said:
Trumps not a convicted felon
Click to expand...

If they "speed" it, he could be by the time of the next general election.

A convicted felon can run for president (it's been done before). But seriously, would you still support him?

He would be swearing he was an "innocent man", victim of a witch hunt, etc etc. Would you believe him?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
If they "speed" it, he could be by the time of the next general election.

A convicted felon can run for president (it's been done before). But seriously, would you still support him?

He would be swearing he was an "innocent man", victim of a witch hunt, etc etc. Would you believe him?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of innocent convicts
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
If they "speed" it, he could be by the time of the next general election.

A convicted felon can run for president (it's been done before). But seriously, would you still support him?

He would be swearing he was an "innocent man", victim of a witch hunt, etc etc. Would you believe him?
Click to expand...

I also could shoot gum drops out of my ass but....

So you ask an EXCELLENT question which I've answered before with a question which no leftist has ever even attempted to a answer.

What I see is allegations on top of allegations which have never been proven. 7 years plus and not one conviction.

BTW in normal circumstances I wouldnt support a "convicted" felon either.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I doubt if it will even go to trial since no laws were broken

It’s just another show hit job by the democrats
Click to expand...
you are delusional

If it was that cut and dried, the grand jury would of tossed it.

The only way this does not go to trial is Trump pleads out
 
zymurgy said:
you are delusional

If it was that cut and dried, the grand jury would of tossed it.

The only way this does not go to trial is Trump pleads out
Click to expand...

An indictment only means there may be enough evidence to go to trial but it’s up to the judge, not them

An indictment is in no way a preponderance of evidence
 
Tinkerpeach said:
An indictment only means there may be enough evidence to go to trial but it’s up to the judge, not them

An indictment is in no way a preponderance of evidence
Click to expand...

not may be. it means they decided enough evidence exists

this is going to trial. the judge won't dismiss a grandy jury indictment without cause
 
zymurgy said:
not may be. it means they decided enough evidence exists

this is going to trial. the judge won't dismiss a grandy jury indictment without cause
Click to expand...

This is already settled with precedent

In 2012 the DOJ argued in district court that the president may keep any documents produced during his administration

They even argued that Clinton could keep audio records with classified information on them and the judge agreed

There is zero chance of them changing it now when the law hasn’t changed
 
Tinkerpeach said:
This is already settled with precedent

In 2012 the DOJ argued in district court that the president may keep any documents produced during his administration

They even argued that Clinton could keep audio records with classified information on them and the judge agreed

There is zero chance of them changing it now when the law hasn’t changed
Click to expand...
no, sophomoric bullshit.

he may keep his documents, his clipping, and his notes

He may not keep agency records that he was allowed to hold while being president

this is not a banana republic where Biden has to beg or bribe him to give back classified docs
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Most of the charges against Trump relate to violations of the Espionage Act, as I detailed in another thread:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...al-defenders-are-saying&p=5667565#post5667565

Did a district court rule that the Espionage Act does not apply to a former president? That would be a remarkable milestone in US legal history!
Click to expand...

The PRA allows him to keep whatever he wants

In law there are specific laws and general laws

The courts have always said that specific laws override general laws

The PRA is specific because it only applies to the president while the espionage act applies to everyone

Also whenever there is a direct conflict between laws they always go with the most recent one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top