The Unwritten Rule Kicks In Again

[Flanders]

The crime is too big to punish.

Obama, Biden, —— and probably Hillary Clinton —— will tiptoe outta there like burglars:

SEE VIDEO FOR ANALYSIS ▼

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6157...#sp=show-clips

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Actually the written rule is what kicks in. That little rule book called the US Constitution.

You can't indict someone without evidence of a crime.
In other words, you have to have an actual criminal statute that can be named to a judge.
You then have to be able to show with real evidence that the person charged violated the crime.

Let me give you an example of how it's done -
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...1-30-2017.html

[StoneByStone]

[Flanders]

Actually the written rule is what kicks in. That little rule book called the US Constitution.

To Poor Richard Saunders: Then why do Democrats refuse to play by the rules?

And please do not cite the very Constitution that Democrats cherry pick whenever it suits them if you intend to respond again. I heard it all.

You can't indict someone without evidence of a crime.

To Poor Richard Saunders: Tell it to Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler.

In other words, you have to have an actual criminal statute that can be named to a judge.
You then have to be able to show with real evidence that the person charged violated the crime.

To Poor Richard Saunders: If you want to talk about evidence, I will ask ‘What evidence did Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler produce to impeach Trump?’ Schiff repeatedly claimed he had the evidence, but he never produced his ‘proof’.

Let me give you an example of how it's done -
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...1-30-2017.html

To Poor Richard Saunders: Democrats jump at every chance to release the most violent guilty criminals from prison. So how come Democrats are so upset because General Flynn is free because he was unjustly charged?

Before you cite Flynn’s confession take a look at a Democrat judge:

May 16, 2020
Flynn Judge Ignores Supreme Court and the Constitution
By Daniel John Sobieski

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...stitution.html

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...57#post3659757

To StoneByStone: Your response is clever, but it does not change the facts. Every crime committed, and every lie told, originated with Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

[Geeko Sportivo]

The crime is too big to punish.

Obama, Biden, —— and probably Hillary Clinton —— will tiptoe outta there like burglars:

SEE VIDEO FOR ANALYSIS ▼

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6157...#sp=show-clips

Flanders, haven't you idiot bastards sniffed Hillary's panties long enough now already?

Get a life dude!

[StoneByStone]

To StoneByStone: Your response is clever, but it does not change the facts. Every crime committed, and every lie told, originated with Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

Every crime? I find it fascinating that these three people are responsible for all the crimes in the world.

[CharacterAssassin]

To Poor Richard Saunders: Then why do Democrats refuse to play by the rules?

And please do not cite the very Constitution that Democrats cherry pick whenever it suits them if you intend to respond again. I heard it all.



To Poor Richard Saunders: Tell it to Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler.



To Poor Richard Saunders: If you want to talk about evidence, I will ask ‘What evidence did Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler produce to impeach Trump?’ Schiff repeatedly claimed he had the evidence, but he never produced his ‘proof’.



To Poor Richard Saunders: Democrats jump at every chance to release the most violent guilty criminals from prison. So how come Democrats are so upset because General Flynn is free because he was unjustly charged?

Before you cite Flynn’s confession take a look at a Democrat judge:

May 16, 2020
Flynn Judge Ignores Supreme Court and the Constitution
By Daniel John Sobieski

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...stitution.html

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...57#post3659757




To StoneByStone: Your response is clever, but it does not change the facts. Every crime committed, and every lie told, originated with Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

It's fun to see you so flustered that you break down in tears yet again.

[Flanders]

Every crime? I find it fascinating that these three people are responsible for all the crimes in the world.

To StoneByStone: Now that you mention it they sellout this country to the global government crowd at every opportunity —— especially Hillary:

Listen to then-First lady Hillary Clinton praising the old Socialist, Walter Cronkite, calling for this country to hand this country’s sovereignty to global government. Move the cursor to 7:45:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...95#post3437995

[Poor Richard Saunders]

To Poor Richard Saunders: Then why do Democrats refuse to play by the rules?

And please do not cite the very Constitution that Democrats cherry pick whenever it suits them if you intend to respond again. I heard it all.



To Poor Richard Saunders: Tell it to Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler.



To Poor Richard Saunders: If you want to talk about evidence, I will ask ‘What evidence did Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler produce to impeach Trump?’ Schiff repeatedly claimed he had the evidence, but he never produced his ‘proof’.



To Poor Richard Saunders: Democrats jump at every chance to release the most violent guilty criminals from prison. So how come Democrats are so upset because General Flynn is free because he was unjustly charged?

Before you cite Flynn’s confession take a look at a Democrat judge:

May 16, 2020
Flynn Judge Ignores Supreme Court and the Constitution
By Daniel John Sobieski

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...stitution.html

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...57#post3659757


To StoneByStone: Your response is clever, but it does not change the facts. Every crime committed, and every lie told, originated with Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

I have seen better reasoned arguments from the drunk at the end of the bar. But then I guess I've never been in the bar you currently can't frequent so are here spouting your drunken rant.

To respond to your rant -
1. We were talking about an indictment by the DoJ. Your whataboutism isn't relevant to criminal charges.
2. An impeachment isn't an indictment and is dealt with differently under the US Constitution. Clearly you haven't read it all in spite of claiming you "heard it all".
3. The evidence was enough that even some GOP Senators said Trump did it but they just didn't think it was bad enough to remove him from office.
4. Your American Thinker author misses out on some basic facts. Flynn has been found guilty by a court already and is just awaiting sentencing. The judge has sole discretion as to whether to allow charges to be dropped and the guilty verdict vacated as even the DoJ cites in the law in their filing. The author's attempt to divert to something else about how a judge can't introduce new facts is complete and utter nonsense. The judge is appointing someone to argue the facts that the court has already accepted as true and used to find Flynn guilty.

[StoneByStone]

To StoneByStone: Now that you mention it they sellout this country to the global government crowd at every opportunity —— especially Hillary:

Listen to then-First lady Hillary Clinton praising the old Socialist, Walter Cronkite, calling for this country to hand this country’s sovereignty to global government. Move the cursor to 7:45:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...95#post3437995

This is all #deflection.

Obamagate is a lie that nobody can defend, so now they're bringing up other things that Democrats have supposedly done. Yes, Hillary is a piece of shit. That doesn't mean Obamagate is real.

[Flanders]

1. We were talking about an indictment by the DoJ. Your whataboutism isn't relevant to criminal charges.

To Poor Richard Saunders: It is my thread. Whatever I say is relevant.

2. An impeachment isn't an indictment and is dealt with differently under the US Constitution.

To Poor Richard Saunders: Asshole. You cited the Constitution:

Actually the written rule is what kicks in. That little rule book called the US Constitution.

The remainder of your response is a standard Democrat Party smokescreen. I suggest you lay it down in a thread of your own.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

To Poor Richard Saunders: It is my thread. Whatever I say is relevant.



To Poor Richard Saunders: Asshole. You cited the Constitution:



The remainder of your response is a standard Democrat Party smokescreen. I suggest you lay it down in a thread of your own.

You may think it is relevant to your thread. It isn't relevant to a criminal charges which require a standard laid out in the US Constitution.

It's amazing how reality has such a liberal bias, just as the law seems to have a liberal bias in your world.

[CharacterAssassin]

The crime is too big to punish.

Obama, Biden, —— and probably Hillary Clinton —— will tiptoe outta there like burglars:

SEE VIDEO FOR ANALYSIS ▼

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6157...#sp=show-clips

They committed no crimes, silly whore.

[jimmymccready]

Obama-gate, as all know, is a nothing burger.

We all know that Trump and Barr are guilty as all get out.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I have seen better reasoned arguments from the drunk at the end of the bar. But then I guess I've never been in the bar you currently can't frequent so are here spouting your drunken rant.

To respond to your rant -
1. We were talking about an indictment by the DoJ. Your whataboutism isn't relevant to criminal charges.
2. An impeachment isn't an indictment and is dealt with differently under the US Constitution. Clearly you haven't read it all in spite of claiming you "heard it all".
3. The evidence was enough that even some GOP Senators said Trump did it but they just didn't think it was bad enough to remove him from office.
4. Your American Thinker author misses out on some basic facts. Flynn has been found guilty by a court already and is just awaiting sentencing. The judge has sole discretion as to whether to allow charges to be dropped and the guilty verdict vacated as even the DoJ cites in the law in their filing. The author's attempt to divert to something else about how a judge can't introduce new facts is complete and utter nonsense. The judge is appointing someone to argue the facts that the court has already accepted as true and used to find Flynn guilty.

judicial activism.