FBI Raids Former President Donald Trump’s Home

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,859
2,885
113
Edmonton
Hence why I said IF.

To be honest, he SHOULD be charged and jailed, but however I'm also realistic enough to know he won't likely see a damned day in jail.
Charged and jailed for what? NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ENLIGHTEN US AS TO WHAT HE'D BE CHARGED WITH because there isn't anything. He'd be in prison now if they actually had anything but they don't and likely will not be able to charge him with anything.

People who SHOULD BE CHARGED is Biden, Hunter, Obama & Hilary! They are the ones who broke laws, not Trump. Stupid is as stupid does.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,749
4,760
113
Washington DC
Charged and jailed for what? NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ENLIGHTEN US AS TO WHAT HE'D BE CHARGED WITH because there isn't anything. He'd be in prison now if they actually had anything but they don't and likely will not be able to charge him with anything.

People who SHOULD BE CHARGED is Biden, Hunter, Obama & Hilary! They are the ones who broke laws, not Trump. Stupid is as stupid does.
But. . . wouldn't they "be in prison now if they actually had anything?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

harrylee

Man of Memes
Mar 22, 2019
1,816
2,289
113
Ontario
The fact even Republicans couldn't find anything with Hillary or Obama says a lot.

Hunter... meh, honestly to me he's in the same realm as Don Jr. ie his daddy is powerful and he's a dipshit.
Don't know about Obama, but the swamp Repubs don't want to look at Hillary. She would drag them down too.
As for Hunter, Don Jr isn't anywhere near his league in dipshittery.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,663
113
Northern Ontario,
Unless the F. B. I. found something to charge Trump with, they probably guaranteed him a win at the next presidential election!
If the same lawyers at his impeachment hearing represent him.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
19,107
4,764
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
“In light of what we now know regarding wrongful prosecution and conviction rates in this country, we must face the harsh reality that our criminal justice system is not just fallible,” Rudolf writes, with a book’s worth of examples to back up his claim. “It suffers from systemic, inherent faults and abuses of power by police and prosecutors — abuses of power that routinely produce erroneous convictions of innocent people.”

Leave aside this action by the Biden justice department — and for that matter, any number of examples from the Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton justice departments. When criminal justice loses its credibility — due to a decades-long parade of wrongful convictions and a litany of politically-motivated prosecutions — all that is left is a power struggle between various players. And no player is more powerful than the government.

Canadians are inclined to see the excesses of the American justice system and think we are better off. That’s likely true, but cold comfort. It may be because we just know less about how our system works.

This is not about the past. Just this week Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino told a House of Commons committee that the RCMP employs spyware — collecting data from devices, turning on mobile phone microphones or cameras — but it is used sparingly and with judicial approval.

Why would anyone believe him? The minister was spectacularly wrong when he claimed that the police had asked for the Emergencies Act to be invoked, suspending basic civil liberties and invading personal privacy. He was either Mendacious Marco or Misunderstood Mendicino, but in either case he was not telling the truth.

If the RCMP was truly desirous of protecting Canadian liberties, it may have run its spyware by the privacy commissioner first, not leaving him to read about the program in the papers.

“It would be preferable, far preferable, that privacy impact assessment be done at the front end, that my office be consulted and that this can be conveyed somehow to Canadians so that they are reassured,” Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne told MPs.

We have recently watched the spectacle of the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, insisting that she “did not interfere in the ongoing investigations into the largest mass shooting in Canadian history.” Her own subordinates claim she did just that to advance the political agenda of the Liberal government.

It’s possible that Merrick Garland is not telling the truth about the Trump raid, which he may have ordered for political purposes. It is certainly plausible that Donald Trump is not telling the truth. And we see the consequences.

Our situation is also dire. Many — including me — do not believe the denials of our public safety minister and Canada’s top cop that politics was not decisive in criminal justice matters of the most grave importance. We do not believe them because their claims are simply not believable.

And because decades of police and prosecutorial abuses have demonstrated that it is right to be suspicious.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,868
1,704
113
I don't suppose you have anything like evidence to substantiate your rumors?
Well in truth there were emails presented and a business associate who has said so. That IS 'evidence', although 'evidence' should not be taken as 'proof', and no court has given a ruling. However you would have to admit that it's not mere conjecture, there is plausible evidence that it's true beyond mere speculation.

As to trump, i'm sure we'll hear what they've found soon enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,355
5,966
113
B.C.
I don't suppose you have anything like evidence to substantiate your rumors?
You have seen the evidence , and know it is there , because your utterly corrupt system refuses to prosecute democrats doesn’t mean the were no criminal activity.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,749
4,760
113
Washington DC
Well in truth there were emails presented and a business associate who has said so. That IS 'evidence', although 'evidence' should not be taken as 'proof', and no court has given a ruling. However you would have to admit that it's not mere conjecture, there is plausible evidence that it's true beyond mere speculation.

As to trump, i'm sure we'll hear what they've found soon enough.
The e-mails were clearly there. "A business associate said?" Oh, well, THAT's inarguable!