Sheriff investigating Trump for Inciting a Riot in NC
Thank god (or whomever). I was wondering when law enforcement would take this seriously and do that part of their job. There were similar events recently in New Orleans, Kansas City, and my abode of St. Louis. Voting here tomorrow, folks.
If you don't vote, don't kvetch.
If we can dedicate 1/1,000th of the resources that were spent on the email and benghazi investigations to pursuing this charge, Trump will be convicted.
jeffhandy said:
If we can dedicate 1/1,000th of the resources that were spent on the email and benghazi investigations to pursuing this charge, Trump will be convicted.
UPDATE: After Consideration, Sheriff’s Office
Not Charging Trump With Incitement
by Ronn
Blitzer | 1:45 pm, March 14th, 2016
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-may-face-incitement-charges-for-violence-at-rallies/
Despite your snide comments elsewhere it's not so easy to draw the line is it?
BCC said:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-may-face-incitement-charges-for-violence-at-rallies/
Despite your snide comments elsewhere it's not so easy to draw the line is it?
It's very easy to draw the line, you just need to find the courage to enforce it.
Terms and Agreement - Response to this post and other associated posts is acknowledgement and agreement to thread drift. Responding participants also agree to not criticize fellow posters for not sticking to the subject narrowly constructed by oneself.
jeffhandy said:
BCC said:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-may-face-incitement-charges-for-violence-at-rallies/
Despite your snide comments elsewhere it's not so easy to draw the line is it?
It's very easy to draw the line, you just need to find the courage to enforce it.
Terms and Agreement - Response to this post and other associated posts is acknowledgement and agreement to thread drift. Responding participants also agree to not criticize fellow posters for not sticking to the subject narrowly constructed by oneself.
I've already commented on your sarcastic crap and if you are as smart as you think you are you would know that courage has nothing to do with it. You have to have a case that is winnable. No doubt you are a better judge of that than the Sheriff. Why don't you get in touch with him and wise him up.
It would be interesting to know why this Sheriff backed off. What actually took place?
EricH said:
BCC said:
You have to have a case that is winnable.
well, not ALWAYS...
jeffhandy said:
If we can dedicate 1/1,000th of the resources that were spent on the email and benghazi investigations...
Aren't you aware there are 4 or 5 investigations going on right now, the most important of which is probably that of the FBI and that investigation is about the e-mails and Benghazi?
I have discussed this in the past and am not going to rehash it.
Suffice to say, that investigation could lead to an indictment of Hillary.
Pretty sure he (and everybody else) IS aware of it, hence his comment alluding to the merits.
In theory, any investigation could lead to an indictment. That doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.
BCC said:
EricH said:
BCC said:
You have to have a case that is winnable.
well, not ALWAYS...
jeffhandy said:
If we can dedicate 1/1,000th of the resources that were spent on the email and benghazi investigations...
Aren't you aware there are 4 or 5 investigations going on right now, the most important of which is probably that of the FBI and that investigation is about the e-mails and Benghazi?
I have discussed this in the past and am not going to rehash it.
Suffice to say, that investigation could lead to an indictment of Hillary.
springgreen2 said:
It would be interesting to know why this Sheriff backed off. What actually took place?
This is the brief message from the Sheriff's office.
'Update 3/14/16 3:12pm: While Sheriff Kevin J. Joyce did go local radio show saying that charging Trump was something his office “had looked at,” Department spokesman Sgt.
Sean Swain has now told The Daily Beast that Trump’s actions do not meet the statute, and they are not pursuing charges.'
IOW, he looked into it and the case cannot be made. That should be no surprise. Despite every outrageous thing the liar has said, and despite all the nonsense about 'courage', it
appears he has not yet crossed the line at which his free speech privileges end.
That much is clear because so far, much to your regret and mine, no government agency and no law enforcement agency in the country has found enough to bring charges against him.
BTW I did not call you snide.
BCC said:
Aren't you aware there are 4 or 5 investigations going on right now, the most important of which is probably that of the FBI and that investigation is about the e-mails and Benghazi?
I have discussed this in the past and am not going to rehash it.
Suffice to say, that investigation could lead to an indictment of Hillary.
Completely aware, they've been going on for years with no results. And it seems to me that you are completely accepting of these investigations even though there has clearly not been any obvious evidence for an indictment. If there was, she would have been indicted already. But when it comes to Trump, you are sooooo ready to say move on even though we have recorded evidence of him encouraging violence.
Don't you see the contradiction in your positions?
jeffhandy said:
BCC said:
Aren't you aware there are 4 or 5 investigations going on right now, the most important of which is probably that of the FBI and that investigation is about the e-mails and Benghazi?
I have discussed this in the past and am not going to rehash it.
Suffice to say, that investigation could lead to an indictment of Hillary.
Completely aware, they've been going on for years with no results. And it seems to me that you are completely accepting of these investigations even though there has clearly not been any obvious evidence for an indictment. If there was, she would have been indicted already. But when it comes to Trump, you are sooooo ready to say move on even though we have recorded evidence of him encouraging violence.
Don't you see the contradiction in your positions?
The investigations by the FBI and the IG of Intel have not been going on for years. In fact they are probably going on for less time than the Watergate investigation. You don't move against a President or candidate for that office without crossing every T and dotting every I. And as you may or may not have noticed, there is a constant drip, drip, drip, of new information coming out on a regular basis.
As to Trump, you claim 'we have recorded evidence of him encouraging violence.'. The answer is SO WHAT? Do you have any evidence of him being charged with any thing,if so show it. Despite your sarcasm, the discussion is about 'where is the line he has to cross before charges can be filed'. Or are you claiming all our entire law enforcement agencies don't have the 'courage' to nail him.
And NO, I don't see any contradictions in my position.
Of course he doesn't. It's impossible to see contradictions to an infallible position.
And while we may complain about springgreen2's Trump thread count, at least he starts threads. How many threads started by others do we need where BCC reminds us in a dictatorial tone what "the discussion is about"? I've been away most of the weekend and read it 3 times in 3 threads in the last 24 hours. I must presume he has it as some kind of shortcut on his laptop at this point.
BCC said:
As to Trump, you claim 'we have recorded evidence of him encouraging violence.'. The answer is SO WHAT? Do you have any evidence of him being charged with any thing,if so show it.
So what you are saying is that someone only commits a crime if they are charged with that crime. I guess all unsolved murders are not really crimes because no one was charged. Except for Hillary's crimes which require no indictment or conviction for you to be convinced.
But you are serving a purpose, the more you post, the more I'm OK with a Clinton presidency.
jeffhandy said:
But you are serving a purpose, the more you post, the more I'm OK with a Clinton presidency.
It's so funny you should say this because I've often thought the same thing. My estimation of HRC has gone up because of the constant & unhinged BCC (and mtierney) diatribes against her.
ridski said:
Of course he doesn't. It's impossible to see contradictions to an infallible position.
And while we may complain about springgreen2's Trump thread count, at least he starts threads. How many threads started by others do we need where BCC reminds us in a dictatorial tone what "the discussion is about"? I've been away most of the weekend and read it 3 times in 3 threads in the last 24 hours. I must presume he has it as some kind of shortcut on his laptop at this point.
Infallible position? Asking where the line is drawn on Trumps garbage is an infallible position?
There is no other discussion about the limit of Trumps free speech rights because unless you want to start a dogpile in which every one vents on how they despise Trump and his
comments there's nothing to discuss. I cannot think of a single person on MOL who supports his comments.
As to 3 people in 3 threads, did it never occur to you that I am talking to 3 people at different times on 3 different threads and they could be asking the same question without their ever having seen the other 2 comments. It is not unusual for me to answer 3 people on the same thread because they seem to be unaware I answered it the day before.
Now, would you point out the contradictions and errors in what I actually wrote on this thread?
jeffhandy said:
BCC said:
As to Trump, you claim 'we have recorded evidence of him encouraging violence.'. The answer is SO WHAT? Do you have any evidence of him being charged with any thing,if so show it.
So what you are saying is that someone only commits a crime if they are charged with that crime. I guess all unsolved murders are not really crimes because no one was charged. Except for Hillary's crimes which require no indictment or conviction for you to be convinced.
But you are serving a purpose, the more you post, the more I'm OK with a Clinton presidency.
There is no unsolved murder here. That's a straw man you put up because you have no other answer.
You and most people posting are perfectly well aware of Trumps outrageous comments and so are all the law enforcement agencies. They have chosen not to charge him. Does that tell you anything at all with regard to his free speech rights?
As to Hillary's crimes, why don't you explain why the investigations are taking so long if her innocence is so transparent to you.Why hasn't the FBI and IG of Intel come out and cleared her already? Are they i the tank for the GOP?
Seems once again the authorities are not as smart as you, but then what do they know?
jeffhandy said:
BCC said:
As to Trump, you claim 'we have recorded evidence of him encouraging violence.'. The answer is SO WHAT? Do you have any evidence of him being charged with any thing,if so show it.
So what you are saying is that someone only commits a crime if they are charged with that crime. I guess all unsolved murders are not really crimes because no one was charged. Except for Hillary's crimes which require no indictment or conviction for you to be convinced.
But you are serving a purpose, the more you post, the more I'm OK with a Clinton presidency.
I'm voting for Bernie and if it's all the same to you I really don't care for whom you or mjh are voting.
BCC said:
As to Hillary's crimes, why don't you explain why the investigations are taking so long if her innocence is so transparent to you.Why hasn't the FBI and IG of Intel come out and cleared her already? Are they i the tank for the GOP?
Seems once again the authorities are not as smart as you, but then what do they know?
As someone wrote earlier in this thread, "The investigations by the FBI and the IG of Intel have not been going on for years. In fact they are probably going on for less time than the Watergate investigation. You don't move against a President or candidate for that office without crossing every T and dotting every I."
Wait, that was Mr. BCC, also.
The fact that an investigation is taking place does not, in and of itself, show much of anything. There have been allegations, of course. Some of the allegations may seem substantive, or not. In the same way, the fact that an investigation hasn't been closed also does not, in and of itself, show much of anything.
It cannot be denied that there will be extreme political posturing by the GOP, if the Benghazi/email/etc. investigation is closed with no further legal action. Therefore, it's more reasonable to assume that the FBI & Co. is carefully looking into any and all allegations, whether or not they may seem substantive.
And now BCC exhibits his reading comprehension problem again. In 3 different threads in 24 hours BCC has brought out the phrase "the discussion is about" because he needs to keep us focused on his limited strawman or else it falls apart.
In GL2's GOP thread yesterday he reminded us all "We were discussing 'free speech'". In springgreen2's Pepper Spray thread he once again reminded us all that "We are talking about drawing the line on free speech" and here in this thread again "the discussion is about 'where is the line he has to cross before charges can be filed'".
I mean I know at some point in every interaction with BCC he pulls out the "this discussion is about" post, but 15 posts into a new thread has to be some kind of record.
ridski said:
I mean I know at some point in every interaction with BCC he pulls out the "this discussion is about" post, but 15 posts into a new thread has to be some kind of record.
Did that come before or after, "I am finished here"?
BCC said:
I'm voting for Bernie and if it's all the same to you I really don't care for whom you or mjh are voting.
If I support a candidate I care about who every other person is voting for because I want them to vote for my candidate.
I am against the criminalization of Politics. In authoritarian countries losing political candidates end up in jail.
I would probably favor immunity for any candidate for President during a Presidential Campaign. Unless a candidate personally hits someone or steals something he or she should not be charged with a crime.
I have said that an indictment of Hillary Clinton would make her more popular with her supporters. If any Sheriff or other law enforcement authority charged Trump with a crime for something he said at a rally it would almost guaranty his nomination. And he would have to decide whether to accept legal assistance from the ACLU.
nohero said:
ridski said:
I mean I know at some point in every interaction with BCC he pulls out the "this discussion is about" post, but 15 posts into a new thread has to be some kind of record.
Did that come before or after, "I am finished here"?
Typically before "I am finished here", but it can come both before and/or after "this is not worth my time".
LOST said:
If any Sheriff or other law enforcement authority charged Trump with a crime for something he said at a rally it would almost guaranty his nomination. And he would have to decide whether to accept legal assistance from the ACLU.
The other problem is that that Sheriff would then face a landslide of death threats on himself, his department and his family. This is how those with rabid followers manage to get away with their barbaric comments. As a Sheriff of a small region, I would think more than twice about facing the wrath of Trump's supporters nationwide. The burden that it would place on that Sheriff department would be immense and would probably make everyday policing impossible. I am guessing that this had a lot to do with charges not being filed.
LOST said:
I am against the criminalization of Politics. In authoritarian countries losing political candidates end up in jail.
I would probably favor immunity for any candidate for President during a Presidential Campaign. Unless a candidate personally hits someone or steals something he or she should not be charged with a crime.
I have said that an indictment of Hillary Clinton would make her more popular with her supporters. If any Sheriff or other law enforcement authority charged Trump with a crime for something he said at a rally it would almost guaranty his nomination. And he would have to decide whether to accept legal assistance from the ACLU.
Hits someone or steals something it's OK to prosecute but indicted for mishandling state secrets, a felony, gets a pass. Are you serious?
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
There is visual, film evidence of this in front of the entire U,S. Instigatory language all the way through. This investigation relates to his behavior on March 9. Bernie or Hillary can make much of this. It's Cumberland County, Fayetteville.