But I never claimed it to be a law, did I…
Oh, so it’s a nothing burger…
What you’re saying is then that you’re good with an FBI agent altering documents that law enforcement uses to build a case to prosecute people. Do I have that right?
1 Like
The constitution is law. Scheesch!?!? Of course you will lie somehow about this too.
1 Like
And it’s outside (extra) the constitution…
It’s Policy, as I said. And as Mueller said.
Neither I or Mueller ever said it was law. That, was YOUR lie.
Again. There is a stupid DOJ policy of not prosecuting setting presidents which only means that no presidents will ever be held accountable for corruption unless and until such policy is changed.
Corruption charges are for right wingers only. Progressivism under the Democrat party was chosen to be the new way for humanity by the luciferian NWO cabal and Trump getting in the way means they’ll use corruption charges until he’s not. They want to make all nationalists and politicians even considering taking up a ‘populist’ cause afraid for their own career, freedom and safety. The only time a corruption charge will ever be brought against a left winger is if they fucked up so bad that a cover up is impossible or they went off script and started rebelling or threatening to expose the system.
1 Like
Ahhh, I was wondering how you would weasel out of that one. You get an E for effort.
I weaseled out of nothing. I posted from the beginning that it’s a DOJ policy, YOU lied claiming I said it was law. You get an F for your dishonesty.
You claimed it was illegal, that means against the law. It this case against the constitution (law).
Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime.
No, I did not, and you’re lying.
You stated:
Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime.
Yeah, policy.
Let me spell this out for you as plain as possible.
The DOJ has a policy (I said, stupid policy IMO) of not prosecuting setting presidents. I DID NOT say that prosecuting presidents was or is illegal.
… and you stated earlier;
Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime.
Yeah, policy. Odd that you don’t see the difference between policy and law…
No, probably not…
Not a question I can answer:
If a FISA court warrant was issued because of falsified information, would that lead to nullification of any findings even if criminal?
Along the lines of if you haven’t been read your Miranda Rights even if there is irrefutable proof of crime the case is dismissed?
You don’t, do you? A federal crime is not policy. But, you won’t understand.
Just depends on the case and how it’s built and how reliant it is on the surveillance aspect of it. If a case is heavily dependent on the surveillance gathered then chances are it gets thrown out because the evidence becomes inadmissible such as what is being discussed in the Michael Flynn case.
How can it depend on the case?
If a warrant was issued on falsified information should the findings of it not be immediately dismissed?
I have to go back to this. If you are caught red handed killing someone and the evidence is incontrovertible, but you were not read your Miranda rights, the entire case gets dismissed.
Ergo, if you supply information for a warrant and the information used to obtain the warrant is false how then can anything be used against you?