Author Topic: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?  (Read 14197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #100 on: May 09, 2020, 12:07:25 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #101 on: May 09, 2020, 12:09:03 AM »
Certainly all these Qs and MAGAs have taken the grand jury indictment angle into account when espousing their theory. It seems to reason that they think Barr and trump won't need a grand jury indictment.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20952
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #102 on: May 09, 2020, 12:14:01 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #103 on: May 09, 2020, 12:17:37 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

No.  The AG can charge today and you can get a grand jury to "indict a bologna sandwich" - dax/kaz W

And, if what Q/bqqk claims about obama is their angle, they would be huge cowards to rely on only the constitutional crime of treason.  They apparently have wire fraud, RICO, mail fraud etc.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #104 on: May 09, 2020, 12:29:21 AM »
Obama Indictment Watch

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #105 on: May 09, 2020, 12:32:24 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

I'll ask another way. Let's say trump sees one of these tweets saying that Obama is being charged on Monday and he wants to make that happen. Isn't that as easy as Barr using the DOJ to make the charge, he doesn't need a judge or a third party to literally draw up a charge? He's publicly talked about pardoning defendants while trials are literally happening, clearly rule of law means nothing to this admin. What's the check and balance for a president and an AG circumventing the criminal justice system for malicious prosecution?

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #106 on: May 09, 2020, 12:34:16 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

I'll ask another way. Let's say trump sees one of these tweets saying that Obama is being charged on Monday and he wants to make that happen. Isn't that as easy as Barr using the DOJ to make the charge, he doesn't need a judge or a third party to literally draw up a charge? He's publicly talked about pardoning defendants while trials are literally happening, clearly rule of law means nothing to this admin. What's the check and balance for a president and an AG circumventing the criminal justice system for malicious prosecution?

Could and can charge Obama and Hillary yesterday.  He ran on "lock her up"

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #107 on: May 09, 2020, 12:40:02 AM »
Thank you, I know the charges wouldn't stick, just wondering if it's possible. There's no depth to the depravity of this administration. Whomever has talked him out of doing this will eventually lose out. I don't know if it's going to happen next week, maybe it will, he'll make dreams happen, but I think it's possible that he'll do it in late November if he loses the election.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20952
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #108 on: May 09, 2020, 12:57:02 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

I'll ask another way. Let's say trump sees one of these tweets saying that Obama is being charged on Monday and he wants to make that happen. Isn't that as easy as Barr using the DOJ to make the charge, he doesn't need a judge or a third party to literally draw up a charge? He's publicly talked about pardoning defendants while trials are literally happening, clearly rule of law means nothing to this admin. What's the check and balance for a president and an AG circumventing the criminal justice system for malicious prosecution?

I'm a little over my skis, as I don't normally dabble in criminal law, but what do you mean by "draw up a charge"? Everyone has due process rights (including probable cause to be arrested in the first place), and among other things that means you can only be detained for a short period of time before having a bond hearing (48-72 hours, I think), at which point any bogus stuff like you're describing should be sniffed out in open court. Neither Trump nor anyone else could cause the arrest of a former president on trumped up charges without facing extreme scrutiny, backlash, and ridicule. It would be political suicide, and it wouldn't take long.

Unless an officer personally witnesses the "treason" (or other unlikely exigent circumstances), you would need an arrest warrant signed by a judge in order to detain Obama. And in federal court, that requires an indictment by a grand jury.

So, the checks are (1) the federal judiciary, and (2) political consequences.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #109 on: May 09, 2020, 01:03:46 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

I'll ask another way. Let's say trump sees one of these tweets saying that Obama is being charged on Monday and he wants to make that happen. Isn't that as easy as Barr using the DOJ to make the charge, he doesn't need a judge or a third party to literally draw up a charge? He's publicly talked about pardoning defendants while trials are literally happening, clearly rule of law means nothing to this admin. What's the check and balance for a president and an AG circumventing the criminal justice system for malicious prosecution?

I'm a little over my skis, as I don't normally dabble in criminal law, but what do you mean by "draw up a charge"? Everyone has due process rights (including probable cause to be arrested in the first place), and among other things that means you can only be detained for a short period of time before having a bond hearing (48-72 hours, I think), at which point any bogus stuff like you're describing should be sniffed out in open court. Neither Trump nor anyone else could cause the arrest of a former president on trumped up charges without facing extreme scrutiny, backlash, and ridicule. It would be political suicide, and it wouldn't take long.

Unless an officer personally witnesses the "treason" (or other unlikely exigent circumstances), you would need an arrest warrant signed by a judge in order to detain Obama. And in federal court, that requires an indictment by a grand jury.

So, the checks are (1) the federal judiciary, and (2) political consequences.

I think his question was can Trump do it if he is as billion % certain as he, Q and Fox are that there was the insanely specific crimes alleged?  The answer is yes, quite easily.  As I said, treason is not all they are alleging.

Trump can very legally direct that Barr charge Hillary and obama. 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 10:16:55 AM by Dugout DickStone »

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20952
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #110 on: May 09, 2020, 01:08:57 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

I'll ask another way. Let's say trump sees one of these tweets saying that Obama is being charged on Monday and he wants to make that happen. Isn't that as easy as Barr using the DOJ to make the charge, he doesn't need a judge or a third party to literally draw up a charge? He's publicly talked about pardoning defendants while trials are literally happening, clearly rule of law means nothing to this admin. What's the check and balance for a president and an AG circumventing the criminal justice system for malicious prosecution?

I'm a little over my skis, as I don't normally dabble in criminal law, but what do you mean by "draw up a charge"? Everyone has due process rights (including probable cause to be arrested in the first place), and among other things that means you can only be detained for a short period of time before having a bond hearing (48-72 hours, I think), at which point any bogus stuff like you're describing should be sniffed out in open court. Neither Trump nor anyone else could cause the arrest of a former president on trumped up charges without facing extreme scrutiny, backlash, and ridicule. It would be political suicide, and it wouldn't take long.

Unless an officer personally witnesses the "treason" (or other unlikely exigent circumstances), you would need an arrest warrant signed by a judge in order to detain Obama. And in federal court, that requires an indictment by a grand jury.

So, the checks are (1) the federal judiciary, and (2) political consequences.

I think his question was can Trump do it if he is as billion % certain as he, Q and Fox are that there was the insanely specific crimes alleged?  The answer is yes, quite easily.  As I said, treason is not all they are alleging.

Trump can very legally direct that Barr charge Hillary and Trump.
But that means nothing.

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #111 on: May 09, 2020, 06:34:42 AM »
 I dunno, maybe this would be a good time to start following some ITK legal experts on the twitters &/or non mainstream media... or, God forbid, Q itself. Not QAnons....  Q.

I can assure you that after doing tens of hours of research in late March and early April, our DOJ etc has EVERYTHING they need to bring charges against Renegade for treason against the United States of America and our beautiful flag.  🇺🇸

I know everyone wants to know the exact date, but all we know for sure is that it will happen before the election and the trial will take place in 2021.

If you aren’t using multiple sources from left, right and independent reporting to figure all this out, you’re doing yourself a great disservice and just making yourself look foolish with the head in the sand posts about what’s actually taken place since 2016.

HTH
bears are fast...

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85185
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #112 on: May 09, 2020, 06:37:37 AM »
lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #113 on: May 09, 2020, 06:44:25 AM »
I put this in the Trump Presidency thread originally as I felt it fits better ther, so sorry for the cross post.

But the long thread beginning at the tweet below lays it all out. Trump hasn’t had a vendetta against Renegade from the start... it was the other way around and the efforts by the past administration to bring down a duly elected sitting president is by definition treason.

https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1258395757872386048

Keep laughing if you want.  At some point, you’ll have to face the facts of what occurred, the evidence that backs it up and watching the consequences in the most epic event I. American history.  Seriously, what a time to be alive!
bears are fast...

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85185
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #114 on: May 09, 2020, 06:46:25 AM »
Thank you, I will


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #115 on: May 09, 2020, 06:47:28 AM »
I dunno, maybe this would be a good time to start following some ITK legal experts on the twitters &/or non mainstream media... or, God forbid, Q itself. Not QAnons....  Q.

I can assure you that after doing tens of hours of research in late March and early April, our DOJ etc has EVERYTHING they need to bring charges against Renegade for treason against the United States of America and our beautiful flag. 

I know everyone wants to know the exact date, but all we know for sure is that it will happen before the election and the trial will take place in 2021.

If you aren’t using multiple sources from left, right and independent reporting to figure all this out, you’re doing yourself a great disservice and just making yourself look foolish with the head in the sand posts about what’s actually taken place since 2016.

HTH
I will bet you a $500 donation to the FattyFund that Obama will not be charged with treason prior to the first Wednesday of November 2020. Deal?
:adios:

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #116 on: May 09, 2020, 06:49:23 AM »
I dunno, maybe this would be a good time to start following some ITK legal experts on the twitters &/or non mainstream media... or, God forbid, Q itself. Not QAnons....  Q.

I can assure you that after doing tens of hours of research in late March and early April, our DOJ etc has EVERYTHING they need to bring charges against Renegade for treason against the United States of America and our beautiful flag. 

I know everyone wants to know the exact date, but all we know for sure is that it will happen before the election and the trial will take place in 2021.

If you aren’t using multiple sources from left, right and independent reporting to figure all this out, you’re doing yourself a great disservice and just making yourself look foolish with the head in the sand posts about what’s actually taken place since 2016.

HTH
I will bet you a $500 donation to the FattyFund that Obama will not be charged with treason prior to the first Wednesday of November 2020. Deal?

Let’s do this... “loser” donates $1k and “winner” donates $500 and you’re on.

Lemme know.
bears are fast...

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #117 on: May 09, 2020, 06:55:23 AM »
I dunno, maybe this would be a good time to start following some ITK legal experts on the twitters &/or non mainstream media... or, God forbid, Q itself. Not QAnons....  Q.

I can assure you that after doing tens of hours of research in late March and early April, our DOJ etc has EVERYTHING they need to bring charges against Renegade for treason against the United States of America and our beautiful flag. 

I know everyone wants to know the exact date, but all we know for sure is that it will happen before the election and the trial will take place in 2021.

If you aren’t using multiple sources from left, right and independent reporting to figure all this out, you’re doing yourself a great disservice and just making yourself look foolish with the head in the sand posts about what’s actually taken place since 2016.

HTH
I will bet you a $500 donation to the FattyFund that Obama will not be charged with treason prior to the first Wednesday of November 2020. Deal?

Let’s do this... “loser” donates $1k and “winner” donates $500 and you’re on.

Lemme know.
No thanks. I’ll continue with my typical annual donations to the FattyFund. I want you to pay extra for constantly spouting this nonsense.
:adios:

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #118 on: May 09, 2020, 07:02:28 AM »
Lack of confidence in your position is understood. Carry on.
bears are fast...

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #119 on: May 09, 2020, 09:27:48 AM »
If you think it would be political suicide for Trump to try to arrest Obama then I can only assume you live in an alternate reality.

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #120 on: May 09, 2020, 09:55:43 AM »
If you think it would be political suicide for Trump to try to arrest Obama then I can only assume you live in an alternate reality.

Couldn't agree more.

 :cheers:
bears are fast...

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #121 on: May 09, 2020, 10:23:49 AM »
Question for the legal scholars on the board. Is there anything stopping trump from telling Barr to charge Obama with treason? We know that trump is all in with maga and q, and with seemingly all of them calling for Obama to be charged, why wouldn't they do it? Are there any tangible repercussions that would deter trump and Barr from charging anyone with anything they want to? They don't need a court order to bring charges, correct?

Well, Obama would have to be indicted by a grand jury. Quite unlikely.

Just clarifying, but there has to be a grand jury indictment for the AG to simply charge someone for anything or is this just a law for a treason charge?

The Constitution sets certain boundaries regarding treason. For example, the prosecution must have two witnesses to the same overt act of treason. However, all federal crimes are enabled by statute. Treason is a defined federal crime, and the enabling statute conforms to the Constitutional requirements. To charge Obama--a private citizen--with treason, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury. I don't see anyway around that.

Obama is a private American citizen. He has due process rights, and that includes probable cause to arrest and detain, and the requirement of a grand jury indictment if not in custody.

I'll ask another way. Let's say trump sees one of these tweets saying that Obama is being charged on Monday and he wants to make that happen. Isn't that as easy as Barr using the DOJ to make the charge, he doesn't need a judge or a third party to literally draw up a charge? He's publicly talked about pardoning defendants while trials are literally happening, clearly rule of law means nothing to this admin. What's the check and balance for a president and an AG circumventing the criminal justice system for malicious prosecution?

I'm a little over my skis, as I don't normally dabble in criminal law, but what do you mean by "draw up a charge"? Everyone has due process rights (including probable cause to be arrested in the first place), and among other things that means you can only be detained for a short period of time before having a bond hearing (48-72 hours, I think), at which point any bogus stuff like you're describing should be sniffed out in open court. Neither Trump nor anyone else could cause the arrest of a former president on trumped up charges without facing extreme scrutiny, backlash, and ridicule. It would be political suicide, and it wouldn't take long.

Unless an officer personally witnesses the "treason" (or other unlikely exigent circumstances), you would need an arrest warrant signed by a judge in order to detain Obama. And in federal court, that requires an indictment by a grand jury.

So, the checks are (1) the federal judiciary, and (2) political consequences.

I think his question was can Trump do it if he is as billion % certain as he, Q and Fox are that there was the insanely specific crimes alleged?  The answer is yes, quite easily.  As I said, treason is not all they are alleging.

Trump can very legally direct that Barr charge Hillary and Trump.
But that means nothing.

I answered the question.  I can't help people who don't like the answer.

Offline LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6007
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #122 on: May 09, 2020, 11:18:53 AM »
I will give Flynn credit.

For all of these accusations of incompetent legal counsel.  He twice pled guilty of a lesser charge of lying to FBI agents to avoid charges of failing to register as a foreign agent and protect his son from similar legal peril.  Only to scheme his way clear of all of it.

Well played sir

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #123 on: May 09, 2020, 11:27:28 AM »
I don't know if it will happen, but Flynn isn't immune from future prosecution. There's also an issue of him working for both Turkey and Trump and who knows what else he was up to.

Offline waks

  • this blog's dick pic expert
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3436
  • Aggieville's Original Gastropub
    • View Profile
Re: Canned Flynn. What's the big deal?
« Reply #124 on: May 09, 2020, 11:35:09 AM »
Lack of confidence in your position is understood. Carry on.
How about loser can never post on goEMAW again? A full IP ban enforced by the mods. Deal?