The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Grand jury refuses to indict Tish again. Gunnerattt?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 17th, 2025 12:22 PM Author: Chocolate associate https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrjj30vx8eo
Could Trump just order her indicted and be done with it? |
Date: December 17th, 2025 12:25 PM Author: Godawful dull stead they can indict her on misdemeanor charges without a GJ which is what they’ve been doing in all the assault on law enforcement cases (and still losing at trial) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49516623) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 1:02 PM Author: fighting community account boy that subthread really stuck with you.
instead of progressively stawmanning my position you should just go for the gusto. so long as you're making stuff up anyway, why not just imagine i think god emperor trump has the power to indict, try, convict, and sentence people unilaterally too? |
 |
Date: December 17th, 2025 1:32 PM Author: Vibrant cuck boiling water like any good backwoods hicklib, EPAH is dominated in his behavior by the chips (multiple) on his shoulders, he obviously gets consumed with anger at perceived slights, there's nothing "chill" about him (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49516842) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 1:48 PM Author: fighting community account perhaps true however i've seen this be the fire the fuels many successful people and i suspect it plays a large role in epah's (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49516923) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 5:06 PM Author: titillating becky mutilating his small children was not chill (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49517447) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 2:21 PM Author: Chocolate associate just answer the question. If he's the CEO of the Executive Branch, and prosecutions are brought by the executive, isn't it unconstitutional to restrain him from exercising his executive power? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49517008) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 4:54 PM Author: fighting community account sure, will you show me the same respect by answering my follow up?
the constitution requires a grand jury to indict for most federal crimes, so that is not within POTUS's executive power, and the courts would be correct in restraining any attempt.
my follow up: our previous discussion on the matter was regarding the comey indictment dismissal where a grand jury indictment was obtained -- so why are you framing this to imply i believe POTUS's power includes indictment without a grand jury? |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 5:04 PM Author: Godawful dull stead because the court ruled that the Comey/James indictments were invalid since a private citizen obtained them and you said that shouldn’t matter since Trump clearly wanted them prosecuted
oddly you refused to answer whether it was proper for the court to throw out Trump’s stolen classified documents case for the exact same reason if Biden clearly wanted him prosecuted |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 5:15 PM Author: fighting community account no, i said the statute of limitations should be satisfied, not that the dismissal should be invalid.
i didn't weigh in your trump follow up because that wasn't an issue there and afaik trump could have been reindicted. you either can't comprehend what i'm saying or you're being deliberately obtuse with an irrelevant "BUT TRUMP!", so engaging was pointless. if the judge held that trump could not be reindicted for the same reason the comey judge did i would disagree with that. happy? |
|
Date: December 18th, 2025 4:37 PM Author: Godawful dull stead What’s the point of a statute of limitations then if you think it should just be extended any time govt fucks up such as when Trump orders a private citizen who can’t pass a senate confirmation to obtain an indictment? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49520085) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2025 4:53 PM Author: fighting community account the point of the statute of limitations is to set a limit on a persons actions being prosecuted, and is satisfied when their is an indictment. a defective indictment ordinarily does free a person from prosecution after the SOL has passed because the purpose of the SOL is satisfied: they have been prosecuted within the time limit. i believe that should be the case with comey as well, especially because the person who actually holds the power to indict manifested his support to use his power that way. all the purposes of SOL were satisfied, so it's bad policy to let someone off the hook when their rights were not impacted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49520136) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2025 5:01 PM Author: Godawful dull stead So we’re back to you thinking the President has the power to indict people? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49520184) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2025 9:00 PM Author: fighting community account because he does as the chief executive vested with the power to enforce the law. the ag and us attorneys are agents that borrow that power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811344&forum_id=2most#49520997) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2025 4:57 PM Author: Cerebral Range Mad Cow Disease libs have scum for brains she obviously committed fraud. she obviously did exactly what she accused trump of, only worse. the grand jury obviously knows this. the grand jury obviously consisted of libs. |