Posted on 07/27/2025 11:37:51 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Hillary Clinton and two Deep State goons are about to receive some terrible news within the next several days that could result in their loss of freedom.
Paul Sperry from Real Clear Investigations reveals that more bad news is in store for Clinton. The CIA and DOJ are working together to declassify for release damning information that Comey’s FBI accelerated Hillary’s sinister plan to frame Trump as a Russian lackey.
And Clinton is not alone. Comey and Brennan are also in jeopardy for their roles.
The release will likely happen at some point next week
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Presidents do not have immunity for crimes committed while in office. People with TDS keep repeating this lie over and over, it’s discouraging to see it here.
The Supreme Court said two things leading to this confusion:
1) Congress and the Judicial Branch cannot criminalize acts carried out to fulfill core functions of the Executive.
2) (from a separate decision) Presidents cannot be indicted and tried for crimes while they are in office, because the Executive is singular - but once they are no longer in office, they can be.
In any event, a seditious conspiracy to nullify the choice of a President by the Electoral College is not a core function of the Presidency, nor of any part of the Exceutive Branch.
Gateway Pundit is soooooooo muuuuucccchhh hyperbole!
Did you not watch John Ratcliffe in his own words in the source video provided by Gateway Pundit? If not, why?
US Const., Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 7 reads that an official who has been congressionally convicted can be prosecuted later for crimes done while in office. The Constitution never says that an official who has not been congressionally convicted can be prosecuted later for what he does in office.
If the Constitution meant that any official could be prosecuted later for what they did in office, why would it specify “the Party convicted”? If the Constitution allowed any official to be prosecuted later, wouldn’t it say something about that along with the limiting “Party convicted” as written?
For example, the Constitution is written so that if it is silent regarding a federal power and the federal power is not specifically enumerated to the feds, then it is not a valid federal power. The Constitution is the ONLY source of delegating powers to the feds by specifying and enumerating them. So, when it comes to the federal gov’t, if it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not a federal power.
So when it comes to the federal gov’t, what constitutionally can be done BY them or TO them should be specified, and prosecution of officials after leaving office who have not been congressionally convicted is not specified in the Constitution.
Also, limited immunity of high gov’t officials is an important factor. Otherwise, they are vulnerable and subject to all kinds of vengeful legal suits, frivolous or not, after they are out of office. That jeopardy could reasonably keep them from faithfully and bravely executing their duties while in office.
Again, if they misbehave while in office, then it is up to Congress to bring charges and convict such.
So the Constitution provides for prosecution of high officials but balances the need for limited prosecution so the officials can be effective while in office and not afraid of politically-motivated legal suits later. If Obama and his officials weren’t congressionally impeached (”impeached” means “formally charged”) and convicted, can they constitutionally get away with crimes while in office? Apparently.
We live in an imperfect world and the Constitution is probably the most inspired legal document to create the best nation within that imperfect world. So within our imperfect world, America and the Constitution aren’t perfect, but they are way ahead of whatever’s in second place.
Don’t forget her private computer......Hillary’s attorneys deleted 30,000 personal emails, wiped it clean and then hammered it to death.
Strzok's name finally popped up in the latest round of documents.
Read this article from Molly Hemingway and Margot Cleveland at The Federalist for details.
-PJ
They should go after these peoples retirements.
Right on time, I will post yet another podcast interview of Armstrong…many now since the January, everyone it seems now is listening to him ( worth your time) …. Your attacks on Armstrong is strengthening his Socrates computer forecasts.
Thanks, enjoy:
What took them so long? We knew all this 10 years ago
What about her putting out the HIT on Seth Rich?
It doesn't need to. The presumption is that an official is like anyone else until the law says otherwise. Sovereign immunity provides certain protections for the President concerning official acts while in office. It doesn't apply to every official. As others have already noted, Spiro Agnew resigned after being indicted and took a plea deal to avoid trial.
That’s too lenient....
(What about her putting out the HIT on Seth Rich?)
Well he got a small postmortem plaque....
“Your attacks on Armstrong is (sic) strengthening his Socrates computer forecasts.”
He failed to predict his three bankrupsies.
He failed to predict his losing $700 million of his clients’funds.
He failed to predict he would spend eleven years in the federal pen.
In 2014 he predicted gold would soar to $5,000 in 2015.
In 2014 he predicted that there would be a world financial collapse would occur in 2015.
In 2018, warned to get out of BitCoin at $5 and gold at $1,500.
July 2024 he predicted US cIvil unrest/WAR to happen just before the 2024 elections.
November 2024 he predicted a US civil war would happen the week of Trump’s inauguration with the US breaking up into four new countries in 2026.
December 2024 he said via Socrates that the 2024 elections would be the last in the US.
January 2025 he predicted US civil unrest on May 7.
June, 2025: The EU is DONE – Ukraine Will Be Wiped off Map
March 15, 2025: Got suckered by fake story https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4304515/posts?page=40#40
July 2025:Armstrong/Delta7 predicts NUCLEAR war https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4328805/posts?page=69#69
Obama will walk because of Presidential immunity
Yes, insofar as the President is performing his “official duties.”
I don’t think TRYING TO COMMIT SEDITION BY DESTROYING YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT QUALIFIES.
I've stated rationales for constitutional presumptions in favor of the requirement that the officials have been congressionally convicted.
Need more than just a flat conclusory premise regarding a presumption favoring your argument. So far you have offered none. Without a CONSTITUTIONALLY-based rationale for your proposed presumption, there is no valid constitutional basis for your argument.
Where is that requirement in the Constitution?
It's a circular argument. If a President commits a crime while in office, he almost certainly is NOT performing his "official duties".
Jim Noble wrote:
“
...as long as the courts are open: Ex parte Milligan | 71 U.S. 2 (1866). ...
“
What if the courts aren’t open?
See Jim Noble’s post about presidential immunity :
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4331086/posts?page=41#41
You don’t gain immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office by leaving the office. That would make all acts while in office protected and one would only have to leave the office before being impeached to get lifetime immunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.