Posted on 07/12/2022 4:24:24 PM PDT by lowbridge
So what? Is there a law against it?
What they are trying to infer is that Trump talking to anyone that they have, will, might, could depose or request documents, emails, txt or meta data from tech companies, IS witness tampering. LOL
There is nothing, ZERO, in the constitution, (presidential eligibility), that makes a presidential candidate ineligible from running and holding the presidency. Other than the insurrection reference in the 14th amendment, which may or may not apply to the president, (and appears to require conviction of insurrection/treason of which the Senate found him not guilty of), there is no other disqualification article in the constitution. Bottom line, a conviction of insurrection may disqualify him but no other crime/conviction would suffice.
Is this witness the one who raped that 10 year old girl?
Excellent question.
“Desantis has a duty to run for president in 2024. We need a competent leader to fight the left”
Then maybe his handlers should run.
What went wrong with it was Obama getting elected, and letting ISIS and Al Dhouri’s Baathist Intel people to sweep back in from their shelter in Syria, a Russian ally, and one which was involved in 911’s AQ cell in Germany. Two Syrians managed the 911 hijacking leaders, one of them was Syrian intelligence, the other, a Syrian businessman. One of the hijackers’s uncle’s was an East German official. Obama invited Iran’s IRGC to take the south, which is where Soleimani was later, when Trump finally splooshed him at the airport.
If the identity of a witness had not been publicly disclosed, then how could P. Trump have known when he tried to contact that person?
Still no answer! Why the attack on FReepers? Many are no longer with us and cannot answer.
If Trump ties his shoelaces, there’s a law against it.
If Trump checks to see what the weather is going to be like today, there’s a law against it.
If Trump watches his favorite tv show, there’s a law against it.
If Trump eats a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, there’s a law against it.
If Trump steps outside his house in the daytime, there’s a law against it.
If Trump steps outside his house in the nighttime, there’s a law against it.
That’s a really dumb point of view.
Trump exposed them for what they were.
Good to know. It’s still a commonly believed meme. Fell for it.
Even if true, what statute regarding House panels/investigations precludes someone from contacting or talking to a potential witness? This is no court, not entitled to the same statutory command and rules one would find in the judiciary system, IMO.
It is nothing but a partisan witch hunt designed to keep a candidate from running for President, period.
My take on Liz Cheney is she the queen bee of the pink hat suburban soccer moms who hate Trump for the contents of the Billy Bush tape.
Yep
Their only hope is process crimes.
The constitution is clear about the qualifications for presidency, age, natural born and can’t be from the same state as the VP. The USSC has stated numerous times that congress, (nor the states), can add additional qualification requirements. The voters get to decide if a candidate meets THEIR qualification requirements, no one else gets to make that decision. Heck, other than not being allowed to vote, a presidential candidate could actually be in jail for a felony and theoretically be elected as president.
In what way am I wrong?
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.