Glad you agree. Prosecuting her is fair and just if she is prosecuting him for tge same thing.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Letita Jamews indicted for fraud
- Thread starter Always in His Presence
- Start date
- Mar 4, 2007
- 3,860
- 3,740
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The Speaker of the House Is Abetting Authoritarianism
On September 20, Trump all but ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to secure indictments and convictions against three political targets. “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as h---,” he instructed Bondi in a Truth Social post. “We can’t delay any longer . . . JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Everyone saw Trump’s message. For days, it was the talk of the political world. But Johnson pretended it hadn’t happened. On September 28, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the speaker: “Don’t you have any qualms about any president telling an attorney general, ‘Go after these three political opponents?’” Johnson, with a straight face, replied, “I don’t think that’s what he did.”
Two days after that interview—and after Trump orchestrated Comey’s indictment by ousting a prosecutor and installing Lindsey Halligan, one of his own former personal attorneys, to get the job done—CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin asked the speaker about this plainly autocratic move. “My understanding is that the previous prosecutor refused to bring the case, because they didn’t think it was a strong enough case,” Sorkin observed. “So you have a situation where the president effectively directed their own lawyer to bring that case.”
“I wouldn’t say that,” Johnson objected. He argued that Halligan’s decision to bring the case, after Trump fired the previous prosecutor for not bringing it, was a perfectly fine example of “the prosecutor’s discretion.”
On September 20, Trump all but ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to secure indictments and convictions against three political targets. “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as h---,” he instructed Bondi in a Truth Social post. “We can’t delay any longer . . . JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Everyone saw Trump’s message. For days, it was the talk of the political world. But Johnson pretended it hadn’t happened. On September 28, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the speaker: “Don’t you have any qualms about any president telling an attorney general, ‘Go after these three political opponents?’” Johnson, with a straight face, replied, “I don’t think that’s what he did.”
Two days after that interview—and after Trump orchestrated Comey’s indictment by ousting a prosecutor and installing Lindsey Halligan, one of his own former personal attorneys, to get the job done—CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin asked the speaker about this plainly autocratic move. “My understanding is that the previous prosecutor refused to bring the case, because they didn’t think it was a strong enough case,” Sorkin observed. “So you have a situation where the president effectively directed their own lawyer to bring that case.”
“I wouldn’t say that,” Johnson objected. He argued that Halligan’s decision to bring the case, after Trump fired the previous prosecutor for not bringing it, was a perfectly fine example of “the prosecutor’s discretion.”
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,572
- 10,375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I don't know that I'd describe charges making it through a grand jury as "sticking".
Upvote
0
What qe see here is a notorious problem in Washington. The failure to prosecute people. It's like far too many "important" people get away with anything. We've seen it over and over again. The consistent answer is ALWAYS its not a strong enough case. Thats the pat answer.
Well, that's over now. The elite are now being looked at and prosecutors are attempting to get indictments. And rhey are getting them. Its about time the elites start facing the music instead of just getting away with everything.
We'll see what a jury has to say.
I just hope rhe DOJ doesn't over charge. Juat choose the easiest probable charge and go for that one.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,020
- 3,941
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No one disputes that, not even James. But it was a campaign promise, prosecutors run on a platform of proving guilt, which she was able to do. I'm reasonably sure she knew enough about Trump's financial dealings even at that point that she was certain she could prove it in court, so it wasn't an unfounded promise.
She made good on it, after all.
But, I'm curious, do you also decry Trump when he trumpets all over social media that James, Comey and others are guilty? He's doing the same thing, but I haven't heard a peep of disagreement. Some could call that a double standard, ya know.
-- A2SG, of course, the major difference here is that Presidents don't prosecute anyone, so there's that....
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,020
- 3,941
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well, to be fair, there is a difference here. There was a significant amount of evidence shown even before the trial indicating Trump's guilt, but so far as we've seen, all that the DOJ has against James is one misstatement on a single form, that wasn't even an actual loan document. Plus which, several attorneys have said this was a weak case, and that they wouldn't have taken it to trial at all. It certainly does seem as if the only reason James was indicted was because Trump demanded it.
Granted, there may be more evidence presented at trial, so I will reserve judgment for the moment, but one has to admit, the preponderance of evidence in this case doesn't seem close to equal to Trump's.
-- A2SG, guess it all comes down to Halligan's skill and experience as a prosecutor....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
