Comments by "c. j. macq" (@cjmacq-vg8um) on "Trump lawyers quit after second indictment" video.

if this robert ray dude did what he claimed as a prosecuter, not prosecting crimes based upon political considerations, he committed crimes! to claim withholding prosecution of a criminal is justified based upon the political "popularity" of the criminal, THAT'S CORRUPTION!
12
if this robert ray dude did what he claimed as a prosecuter, not prosecting crimes based upon political considerations, he committed crimes! to claim withholding prosecution of a criminal is justified based upon the political "popularity" of the criminal, THAT'S CORRUPTION!
4
@cnssegura ... in trump's case i don't think its so much about repetition as following the path of least resistance. trump keeps committing these crimes because of a 50 year history of getting away with it. what's the old saying? "if it works keep doing it."
4
if this robert ray dude did what he claimed as a prosecuter, not prosecting crimes based upon political considerations, he committed crimes! to claim withholding prosecution of a criminal is justified based upon the political "popularity" of the criminal, THAT'S CORRUPTION!
4
@sineadmurtagh943 ... one last thing. name one convicted felon that would make a great elected official. maybe we can make them police chief and fbi director as well!
2
two things i'd like to comment on. first, i knew if the doj waited until after trump declared his silly 2024 prez candidacy he'd use that as claim for prosecutorial immunity. the doj moved way to slow on all matters concerning prosecuting trump. he's running just to use it an excuse to claim the doj is acting politically. second, what's this nonsense that a convicted felon can be elected president? that's the stupidest thing i ever heard. they say nothing in the constitution prevents it. BUT nothing in the constitution allows it! our founding fathers never envisioned a major american political party would ever be so corrupt to do it! for one thing with a felony conviction he wouldn't even pass a security clearence. here's the scam; when the elite what something done but the constitution makes no mention of it, they say "the constitution doesn't prevent it." BUT when its something they don't want done that the constitution makes no mention of the elite say - "the constiution doesn't allow it." the corrupt elite get it both ways. they use ambiguity in the law to JUSTIFY all kinds of crimes and anti-democratic corruption.
1
@sineadmurtagh943 ... i can't believe you're defending putting al capone in public office. we're not talking about parking tickets or jaywalking. we're talking rape, assault and battery, fraud, extortion, grand larceny and murder - felonies! to be a "public servent' requires public trust. if you break the law you've proven unworthy of that public trust. we have enough criminals in poltics already. we don't need to start allowing ouselves to be directly ruled by convicts.
1
@sineadmurtagh943 ... yes, and the principle involved is - we don't want FELONS and gangsters ruling us. my god what's wrong with you? do you want to be ruled by hitler? use your brain, man, not your misplaced sentiment. does anyone in this country know anything about ethics anymore? on top of that my argument is the constitution DOESN'T allow convicted felons in public office. and you're not even commenting on the argument. lastly, mandela WASN'T a convicted felon. he was inprisoned for fighting for human rights against aparthied and minority rule. he was a political prisoner. i think your heart's in the right place, my friend, but sometimes we must ALLOW our reason to override our emotions.
1