• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Prosecutors cite Trump’s supposed gun purchase as possible crime

We Never Know

No Slack
Lets forget about Hunters gun and go after Trump lol.
The left persecution is in full swing

Prosecutors cite Trump’s supposed gun purchase as possible crime

"
Federal prosecutors said in a Friday night filing that former president Donald Trump may have broken the law if he bought a handgun at a recent campaign stop in South Carolina.

“The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so,” the court filing argues. “It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending.”

The prosecutors were referring to social media posts by the Trump campaign earlier this week, when a staffer posted a video of Trump — who is the Republican frontrunner for the 2024 presidential nomination— at the Palmetto State Armory, a gun store in Summerville, S.C.

The video “showed the defendant holding a Glock pistol with the defendant’s likeness etched into it. The defendant stated, ‘I’ve got to buy one,’ and posed for pictures,” the prosecutors’ filing states, noting that the staffer posted the video with a caption that said: “President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!”

The campaign staffer later deleted the post and retracted the claim, saying Trump did not purchase or take possession of the gun. The latter claim, prosecutors note in their filing, is “directly contradicted by the video showing the defendant possessing the pistol.”

 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't feel safe with him in office. I don't think he is capable of introspection or of feeling guilt. If he breaks a law I hope they scrutinize it, because he is applying for commander in chief.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
No, lets go after both, if both committed a crime. They are going after Hunter.
That was my sarcasm because don't you remember in the other threads how the left posters here were saying its dumb and wrong to go after Hunter for the gun charge? How it might even violate his 2nd admendment lol
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That was my sarcasm because don't you remember in the other threads how the left posters here were saying its dumb and wrong to go after Hunter for the gun charge? How it might even violate his 2nd admendment lol
That is not "the left". That was just reasonable people. Have you forgotten your ability to find someone that was charged with Hunter's crime as a primary offense?

By the way, that actually applies to Trump to. He has not been charged, but there is a chance that this law may be unconstitutional as well. In fact it is in Texas.. A Texas district court federal judge found it to be unconstitutional. That means in the district that Texas is in that one can't be prosecuted by this law. But that only applies to that district. It may make it to the Supreme Court some day where it would be resolved.

Trump's legal team realized that it was illegal in South Carolina so they had him walk back his claims.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Can't both be prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit.
I tire of partisans using sins of the other to excuse sins among their own.
Has Trump even bought or taken possession of a gun yet?
I agree prosecute them both if they broke those laws. However...

They(the right) go after Hunter for tax fraud and gun charges.

In return...

They(the left) go after Trump for fraud and now possibly gun charges.


It took five years for Hunter, it took less than a year for Trump(the gun thing just a few days)

Is it all coincidence, tit for tat, party wars, break the law and be prosecuted, or other?


Edit...

IMO they didn't go after Hunter because he broke the law. They went after Hunter trying to get to Joe.
And
IMO they didnt go after Trump because he broke the law, they went after Trump trying to get him out of politics.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I agree prosecute them both if they broke those laws. However...

They(the right) go after Hunter for tax fraud and gun charges.

In return...

They(the left) go after Trump for fraud and now possibly gun charges.


It took five years for Hunter, it took less than a year for Trump(the gun thing just a few days)

Is it all coincidence, tit for tat, party wars, break the law and be prosecuted, or other?
Not even close. The investigations into Trump's illegal acts began before he was President. His legal troubles may have been one of the major reasons that he ran in the first place. As President he had a temporary reprieve. Now after all of these years the dominoes are falling fast and furious. When Trump is stupid enough to say that he is going to break a law openly of course there is going to be a reaction.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I agree prosecute them both if they broke those laws. However...

They(the right) go after Hunter for tax fraud and gun charges.

In return...

They(the left) go after Trump for fraud and now possibly gun charges.


It took five years for Hunter, it took less than a year for Trump(the gun thing just a few days)

Is it all coincidence, tit for tat, party wars, break the law and be prosecuted, or other?
Justice is a blunt instrument. Seeing differences
between cases isn't inherently political corruption.
Prosecuting Trump quickly after leaving office is
reasonable. He attempted a coup, which is a far
more compelling crime than Hunter's.

I find it really odd how so many leap to Trump's
defense using Hunter Biden's troubles as a basis.
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
Justice is a blunt instrument. Seeing differences
between cases isn't inherently corrupt.
Prosecuting Trump quickly after leaving office is
reasonable. He attempted a coup, which is a far
more compelling crime than Hunter's.
My edit to my post

IMO they didn't go after Hunter because he broke the law. They went after Hunter trying to get to Joe.
And
IMO they didnt go after Trump because he broke the law, they went after Trump trying to get him out of politics.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
IMO they didnt go after Trump because he broke the law, they went after Trump trying to get him out of politics.
Prosecution for insurrection is a worthy motive.
I'll wager that many want Trump prosecuted
for this treason, which is now another good
additional motive to want him out of politics.
We shouldn't have a power mad treasonous cult
leader running the country.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Prosecution for insurrection is a worthy motive.
I'll wager that many want Trump prosecuted
for this treason. It's now also a good additional
motive to want him out of politics.
We shouldn't have a power mad treasonous cult
leaderunning the country.
Yep, Hunter's crimes only deprived the IRS from a few tens of thousands of dollars. I doubt if he broke the hundred thousand dollar threshold. Trump's financial crimes amounted to over a hundred million dollars. And there is no price on trying to overthrow the US government.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yep, Hunter's crimes only deprived the IRS from a few tens of thousands of dollars. I doubt if he broke the hundred thousand dollar threshold. Trump's financial crimes amounted to over a hundred million dollars. And there is no price on trying to overthrow the US government.
I'm willing to price it.
Levy a $1,000,000,000,000 fine against Trump & his culpable minions.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Prosecution for insurrection is a worthy motive.
I'll wager that many want Trump prosecuted
for this treason, which is now another good
additional motive to want him out of politics.
We shouldn't have a power mad treasonous cult
leaderunning the country.
Lets look at Jan 6th......

When was Trump charged? Before or after he announced he was running in 2024?
After

When were the others charged? Before or after Trump announced he was running on 2024?
Before
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Prosecution for insurrection is a worthy motive.
I'll wager that many want Trump prosecuted
for this treason, which is now another good
additional motive to want him out of politics.
We shouldn't have a power mad treasonous cult
leader running the country.
I agree Trump doesn't need to be in office again.
I'm just giving my opinions on a few other things.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Lets look at Jan 6th......

When was Trump charged? Before or after he announced he was running on 2024?
After

When were the others charged? Before or after Trump announced he was running on 2024?
Before
That doesn't matter.
He should be charged as soon as the case was put
into acceptable form. Who can say how long that
tedious task would take, eh.
If you're finding significance in some coincidence,
I recommend looking at the meat of the legal
issues, eg, bank fraud, attempted coup.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
That doesn't matter.
He should be charged as soon as the case was put
into acceptable form. Who can say how long that
tedious task would take, eh.
If you're finding significance in some coincidence,
I recommend looking at the meat of the legal
issues, eg, bank fraud, attempted coup.
"If you're finding significance in some coincidence,
I recommend looking at the meat of the legal
issues, eg, bank fraud, attempted coup."


All charges brought forth after he announced he was running in 2024.

IMO its more about persecution than prosecution.
 
Top