Congressional oversight over State Prosecutors?

[Yakuda]

There is no crime that Trump would commit, regardless of how severe, that you would ever consider more than a political stunt. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing him run for office again and lose as badly as before.

You avoid things very well. Good job.

[Earl]

The 2020 presidential election was stolen. So were the 2 Senate seats in Georgia.

Even the far left loons admit it on some of the other threads.

They speak of the mail in ballots and ballot harvesting being problematic.

They most certainly are problematic.

[archives]

So, you small government folks...


Are you outraged about a Congressional committee expanding its mandate to investigate an elected State Prosecutor?

What powers to you believe the Federal Government has over an elected State Prosecutor?

It’s bullshit

Prior to Trump saying he was going to be indicted two weeks ago the Jimmy Jordans of the House didn’t give a rats ass about Bragg or his investigation. It is an orchestrated effort designed in MaraLago, Trump raises the indictment and his instructs his stooges to come to his defense by echoing the “injustices” so grace they want their own investigation

Bullshit

[Jarod]

Yes and I submit it's a valid claim given the seven year history of democrats pursuing trump. At the very least that history should make anyone think twice. It would be like an Arab telling me how evil a Jew is. The Jew might be evil but given the history between Arabs and Jews it's not unreasonable to be suspicious of the claim.

If I felt that way I would be suspicious, but I wouldn’t be out making claims that there is no way I wouldn’t know for sure if they were true or not. Basically, his defenders are saying, I don’t care what the evidence or charges are I pre-decided, no matter what he is innocent.

Basically, he is above the law in your eyes.

[archives]

The 2020 presidential election was stolen. So were the 2 Senate seats in Georgia.

Even the far left loons admit it on some of the other threads.

They speak of the mail in ballots and ballot harvesting being problematic.

They most certainly are problematic.

And Big Foot was spotted last week, Elvis was seen hanging out in Idaho, and Sandy Hook never occurred

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It is a political stunt. The number of counts isn't relevant unless you can explain how.

The number of counts would be relevant since each count has to be a new crime.

A political stunt would be calling a witness before a committee to testify and then not letting the other side question that witness.
Charging someone with a crime as a stunt would be quickly found out since it requires adjudication by a court. Courts don't look kindly on prosecutions that are not based on facts.
I will guess that when we finally see the indictment it will include all the requirements of any indictment. It will cite the statute that was violated and tell how the accused violated the statute. While it might be political to decide who to prosecute since you have limited resources, the prosecution itself is not political if it has a legal basis.

[Uncensored2008]

So, you small government folks...


Are you outraged about a Congressional committee expanding its mandate to investigate an elected State Prosecutor?

What powers to you believe the Federal Government has over an elected State Prosecutor?

The constitution applies even to the Soros troops conducting witch hunts.

I know, civil rights are such a bother - your party is working hard to end them...

[Yakuda]

If I felt that way I would be suspicious, but I wouldn’t be out making claims that there is no way I wouldn’t know for sure if they were true or not. Basically, his defenders are saying, I don’t care what the evidence or charges are I pre-decided, no matter what he is innocent.

Basically, he is above the law in your eyes.

That's not a claim I've ever made and I hope you aren't suggesting I have. But you realize the opposite claim you make here could be levied against you right?

[Uncensored2008]

Suddenly you are a big government proponent?

Nah, just a civil rights proponent.

Where you fascist democrats are opponents of all individual rights.

[floridafan]

Nah, just a civil rights proponent.

Where you fascist democrats are opponents of all individual rights.

Just what rights are u referring to?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Charges brought by a politician who is also a lawyer, who also decides what a jury hears and only has to show enough evidence to charge which isn't a very heavy burden. I have evidence of a person standing next to a dead body. I can easily make a charge but convicting is an entirely different matter. Nothing I've heard yet proves this isnt a political stunt.

That isn't quite true. What you are saying is that the prosecutor can lie and hide evidence when he stands in front of the grand jury.
The grand jury is free to call witnesses not offered by the prosecutor. The grand jury is tasked by a judge with deciding if there is enough evidence to charge the crime.
No reasonable grand jury is going to indict someone just because you have evidence of them standing next to a dead body. The facts you make up doesn't make this a political stunt. Why don't you wait until you see the evidence in the indictment?

[Jarod]

That's not a claim I've ever made and I hope you aren't suggesting I have. But you realize the opposite claim you make here could be levied against you right?

You’ve said it was purely political without seeing the charges or evidence…. So basically you have announced you will say he is innocent no matter what…

AKA - Above the law.

[domer76]

Charges brought by a politician who is also a lawyer, who also decides what a jury hears and only has to show enough evidence to charge which isn't a very heavy burden. I have evidence of a person standing next to a dead body. I can easily make a charge but convicting is an entirely different matter. Nothing I've heard yet proves this isnt a political stunt.

I understand. You’re one of the more pro-Trump partisans on this forum, so I get your take on things. Nothing that I say is going to change your mind.

And, make no mistake about it, I have testified before grand juries and I know how one-sided they can be. No fan of them. But, that’s the system we have, like it or not.

Now, a whole new set of players become involved. Not a grand jury, but a criminal one, if it goes as far as a trial. If that jury reaches a verdict, one way or another, will you still consider it a political stunt?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The constitution applies even to the Soros troops conducting witch hunts.

I know, civil rights are such a bother - your party is working hard to end them...

Yes. Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Just like every other defendant in the US.
Civil rights seems to be a bother when the legislature interferes with the courts and the executive branch instead of letting the process move forward like the Constitution says it is supposed to.

[Jarod]

The constitution applies even to the Soros troops conducting witch hunts.

I know, civil rights are such a bother - your party is working hard to end them...

You are calling it a witch hunt without seeing any evidence or the charges.

No matter what you are saying he is not guilty… you think he is above the law!