Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ChicagoConservative27

What Crimes???


4 posted on 02/11/2020 10:34:33 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (Kill a Commie for your Mommy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Kickass Conservative

You beat me to it!


11 posted on 02/11/2020 10:36:00 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Kickass Conservative

It seems leftists have their own brand of justice nowadays. They can accuse you of breaking any “law” they invent.


18 posted on 02/11/2020 10:37:58 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (As long as Hillary Clinton remains free equal justice under the law will never exist in the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Kickass Conservative

Exactly. Everyone accepts this as fact, but so few actually elaborate on specifics.


34 posted on 02/11/2020 10:43:26 AM PST by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Kickass Conservative

Of course we know that President Trump didn’t commit any crimes, but one thing that bothers me about the whole impeachment and defense was the way both sides threw Nixon under the bus every chance they got.

My point is that - yes, there was a break in, which is a crime. Nixon knew about it (at some point) and tried to cover it up, which is another crime... or is it?

Adam Schiff accused Trump of a coverup too - but luckily Trump had better lawyers, and the benefit of hindsight - lessons learned from Watergate.

Trump’s defense team argued (successfully) that what Schiff was calling a “coverup” was actually one coequal branch asserting its constitutional rights (Executive privilege) with regard to another coequal branch (Legislative). Assertion of constitutional rights cannot be construed as an impeachable offense without violating the separation of powers doctrine at the heart of the Constitution.

So, if Richard Nixon had better lawyers, or the benefit of hindsight, his so called “coverup” would have been seen for what it really was - the assertion of constitutional rights - which protect the President, or any defendant from being forced to offer evidence or testimony against himself.

Nobody accused Nixon of participating in the break in, or ordering it - what he was being impeached for was trying to cover it up once he found out about it. I wonder what would have happened if Nixon had had better council who understood that refusing to incriminate oneself is not a “coverup”, and therefore not impeachable.


68 posted on 02/11/2020 12:03:35 PM PST by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson