|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
But then, what is even the point?
If you think that Trump should be prosecuted, and also believe that he would not have been prosecuted if he were not running for president, shouldn't you still agree that him being prosecuted is a good thing, since you believe that he should be prosecuted?
Isn't the point of people arguing that Trump would not have been prosecuted if he didn't run for president usually that he should not be prosecuted because of that?
The position of "Trump should be prosecuted for what he has done, but he is being prosecuted for political reasons, and therefore he should not be prosecuted" doesn't really make sense to me. Am i misunderstanding something here?
|
United States24751 Posts
I think, lost in the recent discussion here, is the additional fact that Trump did not have the authority to declassify many of the documents he refused to return, even back when he was president (and neither can Biden, and they can't be shared with officials from other countries without actions taken beyond just the President, by law).
|
On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 19:47 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 16:13 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 15:14 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 09:05 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2024 08:11 King_Charles_III wrote:
[quote]
Talk about exaggerations. This is a discourse that is well past the point of resembling reality or understanding. 2024 is going to be a wild year. The two sides are just so far apart on what constitutes reality. Meanwhile, the dem side is doing overkill prosecutions of the Republican candidate, prosecutions that are premised on the dem side's echo-chamber narratives. Not good.
The only path to become a well informed American citizen in 2024 (and tbh, who has the time) is to divorce yourself from the MSM reporters' headlines and arguments and instead mine their articles for raw facts, while also gathering raw facts from X and wherever else. If you do that for long enough while also reading about the US govt's regime-change capabilities, what you will inevitably see is a super-constellation of circumstantial evidence that those regime-change capabilities have been turned inwards against populism. The Western counterglobalization movement that began around 2013 (of which Trump is the US standard bearer currently) is viewed as an existential threat by Western security states. They have responded with full-scale domestic political meddling. The events and investigations that you think are organic, and that form the bulk of your understanding of trump, were manufactured by highly sophisticated actors, the US executive agencies.
Thus why Trump is a reasonable choice for the moderate voter in 2024, regardless of Trump’s specific policies (which of course are not going lead to a dictatorship or whatever is the hysteria of the day on the dem side). He represents our last stand against the US's Praetorian Guard. Democrats, meanwhile, are temporarily allied with the Praetorian Guard because they have a common enemy for now. That won't lead to a good result even if they finally succeed in getting Trump into a jail cell.
Trump broke the law repeatedly and flagrantly, as he has for decades, long before he showed any political inclinations. He has attempted to spin this into some kind of political persecution, despite benefiting massively from the reluctance of the justice department to prosecute his crimes. Trump isn't being politically persecuted, Trump has escaped a life sentence in prison so far precisely because of the fear of the appearance of political persecution. He stole secret Iran invasion plans from the White House and showed them to Kid Rock in a bizarre attempt to impress him. Even Kid Rock called him out on that one and said that he probably shouldn't be looking at them. A journalist recorded him for an interview in which he explained to her how funny it was that the law said that he couldn't show her the documents that he was currently showing her. Trump explains, out loud, in his own voice, exactly why he is guilty and which crimes he is committing. At what point will it be enough for you people? How many times has Trump been criminally indicted for his “decades of flagrantly breaking the law”? Doesn’t the timing seem a little suspicious to you if he has been breaking the law for decades but the indictments only pour in during the run up to an election? Many times, but even if the answer was "never", he has also never before been in a position to show classified documents to Kid Rock, or to incite an attempted coup d'etat. As for tax fraud, eh. I'll grant you that they are probably only going to these lengths to get him because he's a VIP rather than a regular ole sleazy businessman. But that doesn't mean he didn't commit tax fraud. Most real estate moguls probably did. There's just limited resources to investigate and of course the VIP is going to get investigated more thoroughly than a generic business man. But as the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The question is if Trump retired to Mar-A-Largo to spend his golden years eating McDonalds and playing golf do you think anyone would care about him showing a classified document to Kid Rock? Yes, they definitely would. If he had them in a basement collecting dust because he forgot about them maybe not, but if an ex-president is showing off state secrets as trophies to impress guests, obviously they would. Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. Show nested quote +But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Show nested quote +Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox
IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust.
By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide.
|
On January 23 2024 08:00 Simberto wrote:
But then, what is even the point?
If you think that Trump should be prosecuted, and also believe that he would not have been prosecuted if he were not running for president, shouldn't you still agree that him being prosecuted is a good thing, since you believe that he should be prosecuted?
Isn't the point of people arguing that Trump would not have been prosecuted if he didn't run for president usually that he should not be prosecuted because of that?
The position of "Trump should be prosecuted for what he has done, but he is being prosecuted for political reasons, and therefore he should not be prosecuted" doesn't really make sense to me. Am i misunderstanding something here?
My answer to this question is surely going to sound incredibly pedantic. Let’s propose the following hypothetical justice systems
A) everyone is held to account for breaking the law
B) powerful people get off
C) powerful people get off unless they have powerful enemies
We probably agree that at present we don’t have scenario A. You could argue that C is closer to A since fewer powerful people get off. I don’t think C would necessarily be better than B because you’re just adding another layer of inequity.
I’ll add the disclaimer (not that it’s going to make a difference) that I’m speaking purely in hypotheticals here and not drawing any straight line to Trumps situation. It’s merely an exercise to counter the argument that any prosecution of any powerful person gets us closer to a place where everyone is treated equally under the law.
|
On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 19:47 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 16:13 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 15:14 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 09:05 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Trump broke the law repeatedly and flagrantly, as he has for decades, long before he showed any political inclinations.
He has attempted to spin this into some kind of political persecution, despite benefiting massively from the reluctance of the justice department to prosecute his crimes. Trump isn't being politically persecuted, Trump has escaped a life sentence in prison so far precisely because of the fear of the appearance of political persecution. He stole secret Iran invasion plans from the White House and showed them to Kid Rock in a bizarre attempt to impress him. Even Kid Rock called him out on that one and said that he probably shouldn't be looking at them. A journalist recorded him for an interview in which he explained to her how funny it was that the law said that he couldn't show her the documents that he was currently showing her. Trump explains, out loud, in his own voice, exactly why he is guilty and which crimes he is committing. At what point will it be enough for you people? How many times has Trump been criminally indicted for his “decades of flagrantly breaking the law”? Doesn’t the timing seem a little suspicious to you if he has been breaking the law for decades but the indictments only pour in during the run up to an election? Many times, but even if the answer was "never", he has also never before been in a position to show classified documents to Kid Rock, or to incite an attempted coup d'etat. As for tax fraud, eh. I'll grant you that they are probably only going to these lengths to get him because he's a VIP rather than a regular ole sleazy businessman. But that doesn't mean he didn't commit tax fraud. Most real estate moguls probably did. There's just limited resources to investigate and of course the VIP is going to get investigated more thoroughly than a generic business man. But as the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The question is if Trump retired to Mar-A-Largo to spend his golden years eating McDonalds and playing golf do you think anyone would care about him showing a classified document to Kid Rock? Yes, they definitely would. If he had them in a basement collecting dust because he forgot about them maybe not, but if an ex-president is showing off state secrets as trophies to impress guests, obviously they would. Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide.
I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny.
|
On January 23 2024 15:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 08:00 Simberto wrote:
But then, what is even the point?
If you think that Trump should be prosecuted, and also believe that he would not have been prosecuted if he were not running for president, shouldn't you still agree that him being prosecuted is a good thing, since you believe that he should be prosecuted?
Isn't the point of people arguing that Trump would not have been prosecuted if he didn't run for president usually that he should not be prosecuted because of that?
The position of "Trump should be prosecuted for what he has done, but he is being prosecuted for political reasons, and therefore he should not be prosecuted" doesn't really make sense to me. Am i misunderstanding something here? My answer to this question is surely going to sound incredibly pedantic. Let’s propose the following hypothetical justice systems A) everyone is held to account for breaking the law B) powerful people get off C) powerful people get off unless they have powerful enemies We probably agree that at present we don’t have scenario A. You could argue that C is closer to A since fewer powerful people get off. I don’t think C would necessarily be better than B because you’re just adding another layer of inequity. I’ll add the disclaimer (not that it’s going to make a difference) that I’m speaking purely in hypotheticals here and not drawing any straight line to Trumps situation. It’s merely an exercise to counter the argument that any prosecution of any powerful person gets us closer to a place where everyone is treated equally under the law.
D) powerful people get off unless they make it so publicly obvious that they committed a crime that prosecutors can no longer ignore it.
Most cases against powerful people are incredibly difficult because those powerful people have good lawyers who can muck up the system for years. If there's any doubt about the outcome, it's not worth the effort to file charges. However, if someone is as blatantly and publicly criminal as Trump, the cases themselves are quite easy. The only hard part is dealing with the delays that his lawyers try to put out, but his lawyers are not particularly good either. He kind of burned through most of the good ones early on.
|
On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 19:47 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 16:13 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 15:14 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
How many times has Trump been criminally indicted for his “decades of flagrantly breaking the law”? Doesn’t the timing seem a little suspicious to you if he has been breaking the law for decades but the indictments only pour in during the run up to an election? Many times, but even if the answer was "never", he has also never before been in a position to show classified documents to Kid Rock, or to incite an attempted coup d'etat. As for tax fraud, eh. I'll grant you that they are probably only going to these lengths to get him because he's a VIP rather than a regular ole sleazy businessman. But that doesn't mean he didn't commit tax fraud. Most real estate moguls probably did. There's just limited resources to investigate and of course the VIP is going to get investigated more thoroughly than a generic business man. But as the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The question is if Trump retired to Mar-A-Largo to spend his golden years eating McDonalds and playing golf do you think anyone would care about him showing a classified document to Kid Rock? Yes, they definitely would. If he had them in a basement collecting dust because he forgot about them maybe not, but if an ex-president is showing off state secrets as trophies to impress guests, obviously they would. Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny.
Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree?
|
On January 23 2024 18:51 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 19:47 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 16:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Many times, but even if the answer was "never", he has also never before been in a position to show classified documents to Kid Rock, or to incite an attempted coup d'etat.
As for tax fraud, eh. I'll grant you that they are probably only going to these lengths to get him because he's a VIP rather than a regular ole sleazy businessman. But that doesn't mean he didn't commit tax fraud. Most real estate moguls probably did. There's just limited resources to investigate and of course the VIP is going to get investigated more thoroughly than a generic business man. But as the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The question is if Trump retired to Mar-A-Largo to spend his golden years eating McDonalds and playing golf do you think anyone would care about him showing a classified document to Kid Rock? Yes, they definitely would. If he had them in a basement collecting dust because he forgot about them maybe not, but if an ex-president is showing off state secrets as trophies to impress guests, obviously they would. Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny. Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree?
To a degree. I think there's a lot of room to do that even more severely. I don't think it's something one should advocate for or celebrate unless they're secretly rooting for the eventual civil war.
|
On January 23 2024 19:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 18:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On January 22 2024 19:47 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
The question is if Trump retired to Mar-A-Largo to spend his golden years eating McDonalds and playing golf do you think anyone would care about him showing a classified document to Kid Rock? Yes, they definitely would. If he had them in a basement collecting dust because he forgot about them maybe not, but if an ex-president is showing off state secrets as trophies to impress guests, obviously they would. Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny. Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree? To a degree. I think there's a lot of room to do that even more severely. I don't think it's something one should advocate for or celebrate unless they're secretly rooting for the eventual civil war. So you think the US should ignore that Trump made a real attempt overturn the election and instigated an actual insurrection where a mob stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the certification to prevent a potential civil war?
news flash, as far as those people are concerned it already is a civil war and in fact you can trace this entire divide in the US back to failing to properly deal with the civil war 160 years ago.
|
On January 23 2024 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 18:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 20:06 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Yes, they definitely would. If he had them in a basement collecting dust because he forgot about them maybe not, but if an ex-president is showing off state secrets as trophies to impress guests, obviously they would. Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny. Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree? To a degree. I think there's a lot of room to do that even more severely. I don't think it's something one should advocate for or celebrate unless they're secretly rooting for the eventual civil war. So you think the US should ignore that Trump made a real attempt overturn the election and instigated an actual insurrection where a mob stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the certification to prevent a potential civil war? news flash, as far as those people are concerned it already is a civil war and in fact you can trace this entire divide in the US back to failing to properly deal with the civil war 160 years ago.
The question of to what extent I personally think Trump should be prosecuted or whether I think he should be kept off the ballot is not something I've thought a lot about. I don't like Trump and I don't like talking about Trump. This is probably the most I've contributed in any Trump-themed conversation in this thread since it's existed. I was simply making the point that I think the Trump indictments are at least partially politically motivated because I don't think we'd have a criminal trial over Stormy Daniels if Trump wasn't seeking re-election. After that the conversation got away from me. The "what should be done here" is a question someone else can answer.
|
On January 23 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2024 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 18:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny. Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree? To a degree. I think there's a lot of room to do that even more severely. I don't think it's something one should advocate for or celebrate unless they're secretly rooting for the eventual civil war. So you think the US should ignore that Trump made a real attempt overturn the election and instigated an actual insurrection where a mob stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the certification to prevent a potential civil war? news flash, as far as those people are concerned it already is a civil war and in fact you can trace this entire divide in the US back to failing to properly deal with the civil war 160 years ago. The question of to what extent I personally think Trump should be prosecuted or whether I think he should be kept off the ballot is not something I've thought a lot about. I don't like Trump and I don't like talking about Trump. This is probably the most I've contributed in any Trump-themed conversation in this thread since it's existed. I was simply making the point that I think the Trump indictments are at least partially politically motivated because I don't think we'd have a criminal trial over Stormy Daniels if Trump wasn't seeking re-election. After that the conversation got away from me. The "what should be done here" is a question someone else can answer.
I think we can probably agree that the Vox article about the Stormy Daniels stuff is convincing, and then it's probably overreach. Shady shit happened, but it seems unlikely to be worth more than a slap on the wrist. In elevating it to "covering up a crime" and thereby making it a felony instead of a misdemeanor, Bragg is trying to "get Trump".
I am not a lawyer, though, let alone one versed in US law. It may be that Vox got some stuff wrong and the case is really solid. Maybe he really did get caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
But it doesn't really matter. He's fairly obviously been raping and tax frauding his way through life since at least the 70s. Some of that is catching up to him now as people start looking what skeletons he actually has stashed in his closet. I personally am in favor of looking.
But the main point is that the "storing classified documents in a basement and refusing to give them back" and "trying to get an election overturned by any means possible" are the huge big red flags you're trying to handwaved away by grouping all of Trump's crimes together and then singling out the fraud case as being rather shakey. Even if it is, it isn't representative of the other cases, which are pretty much open-and-shut AND far more damning than the fraud.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On January 23 2024 20:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2024 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 18:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased?
This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny. Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree? To a degree. I think there's a lot of room to do that even more severely. I don't think it's something one should advocate for or celebrate unless they're secretly rooting for the eventual civil war. So you think the US should ignore that Trump made a real attempt overturn the election and instigated an actual insurrection where a mob stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the certification to prevent a potential civil war? news flash, as far as those people are concerned it already is a civil war and in fact you can trace this entire divide in the US back to failing to properly deal with the civil war 160 years ago. The question of to what extent I personally think Trump should be prosecuted or whether I think he should be kept off the ballot is not something I've thought a lot about. I don't like Trump and I don't like talking about Trump. This is probably the most I've contributed in any Trump-themed conversation in this thread since it's existed. I was simply making the point that I think the Trump indictments are at least partially politically motivated because I don't think we'd have a criminal trial over Stormy Daniels if Trump wasn't seeking re-election. After that the conversation got away from me. The "what should be done here" is a question someone else can answer. I think we can probably agree that the Vox article about the Stormy Daniels stuff is convincing, and then it's probably overreach. Shady shit happened, but it seems unlikely to be worth more than a slap on the wrist. In elevating it to "covering up a crime" and thereby making it a felony instead of a misdemeanor, Bragg is trying to "get Trump". I am not a lawyer, though, let alone one versed in US law. It may be that Vox got some stuff wrong and the case is really solid. Maybe he really did get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. But it doesn't really matter. He's fairly obviously been raping and tax frauding his way through life since at least the 70s. Some of that is catching up to him now as people start looking what skeletons he actually has stashed in his closet. I personally am in favor of looking. But the main point is that the "storing classified documents in a basement and refusing to give them back" and "trying to get an election overturned by any means possible" are the huge big red flags you're trying to handwaved away by grouping all of Trump's crimes together and then singling out the fraud case as being rather shakey. Even if it is, it isn't representative of the other cases, which are pretty much open-and-shut AND far more damning than the fraud.
I can’t recall if it was you or Jimmy, but the Al Capone going down for tax issues was a pretty good comparison.
@BlackJack it seems odd to be initiating a line of inquiry then saying you haven’t really thought about the implications, nor how you would apply them in this scenario. I think you raise some valid points actually, but there’s little point in having an aesthetically and mechanically glorious golf swing if one doesn’t actually hit the ball.
As a tangential aside I just don’t buy the ‘we shouldn’t do x because it will be divisive and split the country’, solely because I haven’t seen much evidence that ceding ground will actually aid to bridge that gap and make things more cordial.
1. Not prosecuting Trump is going to piss people off, just a different group of folks so pick your poison.
2. There’ll always be some new cause celebré that people will jump on to claim victimhood anyway, you’re just kicking the can down the road.
Sometimes just dropping something makes sense to keep the peace, I largely hold my tongue on political things at family gatherings as I know they’ll create friction, and in that environment I feel it’s the right course. In others, if someone is being an arsehole you may as well call them out for being an arsehole. Your silence will not disincentivise that behaviour, and indeed the lack thereof may tacitly encourage it to worsen.
Not prosecuting Trump strikes me as the worst of both worlds, you aren’t healing wounds in the body politique and you’re letting an obvious criminal skate as you do so. It’s all of the downsides of sacrificing various principles, with none of the pragmatic upsides. IMO anyway.
If it would diffuse the worst elements of the cult of Trump from wider political influence, then maybe. I’m not a betting man, and for that my bank balance in thankful but I would throw down a fair wedge on it that dropping various criminal proceedings would not lead to that outcome.
|
On January 23 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2024 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2024 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 18:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 15:11 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2024 09:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 23 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 22 2024 23:31 Simberto wrote:On January 22 2024 22:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 22 2024 21:10 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Obviously they would care if he took classified docs he wasn't supposed to have to his house and used them to impress guests, hence the FBI raid. The Kid Rock thing happened in 2017, at the white house and when he was still President. I just don't imagine an ex head of state facing severe blowback for bragging to a rock 'n roller 7 years after the fact. Maybe I'm just cynical towards our justice system. If you think this is some partisan hot-take, consider that I also don't think Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing any indictments either if Joe Biden were retired and sitting on the couch watching re-runs of Gunsmoke. Do you believe the two times that he casually showed people classified documents on tape was the only two times he ever did that? Do you believe he was hiding the documents when the government asked for them back because he never planned to show them to anyone else? Would you be OK with it if it was Joe Biden stealing, hiding and showing top secret documents to who ever he pleased? This is such a silly discussion. The goalposts have shifted beyond anything reasonable now. For normal people, if they commit a crime, get caught, and get sentenced because of the crime, that is just normal. Somehow, for Trump, people argue that because other rich people sometimes evade justice, it would be okay if he did here, too. Instead of arguing that maybe the laws should work for everyone, and we should prevent rich & powerful people from ignoring them, we now have law-and-order conservatives argueing that prosecuting someone for crimes he did commit is a political witchhunt. I wonder if they would react the same way if it wasn't their Messias Trump stealing state secrets and trying to overthrow the government, and instead some random black dude with half a gram of weed. The partisanship is just absurd. These are not competing ideas. You could support the idea that anyone should be held to account for violating the law no matter how big or small while also acknowledging that's often not how it works. Acknowledging that powerful people get special treatment is not an endorsement that they "should" get special treatment. The question of whether Trump "should" be prosecuted is entirely different from the question of whether Trump "would" be prosecuted and you mustn't conflate them. Take the Stormy Daniels case which I believe marks the first time an ex-President had been charged with a crime. But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law. Source: Vox* The idea that America is just so committed to equal treatment under the law that it would prosecute a former President using dubious legal theory for a hush money payment to a prostitute 7 years after the fact is not based in reality. Anyone that honestly thinks this case would exist if Trump were not running for President is blinded by partisanship, imo. *Anyone that may think Vox is a Fox News equivalent pushing partisan narratives isn't familiar with Vox IIRC Trump spent a decent amount of time pushing the narrative that obama wasn't a legitimate presidential candidate because he wasn't -actually- born in the US. I have a hard time empathizing with Trump's current position of contending with accusations and charges for things he actually did, and don't see it as a partisan issue so much as an 'issue' of presidential candidates being held to higher scrutiny than not, even if that scrutiny may be unjust. By your own admission Biden faced similar levels of scrutiny. I don't see it as a partisan issue - surely the front of the country is not a great place to try put yourself if you've got stuff you hope to hide. I mean we could create a society wherever whoever gets a little power uses it to direct every tool in their disposal to investigate and target the opposition. I don’t know if that would be a reason to rejoice that, hey, everyone is now held to a higher level of scrutiny. Create? You've already said this is already happening. You pointed to scrutiny of biden. You've pointed to scrutiny of Trump. We could add obama / bush / clinton / whoever to the list if you want, but it doesn't change the point : Currently, the way the US political structure works is that political candidates are subjected to both just and unjust scrutiny by the opposing political force. Is this something with which you disagree? To a degree. I think there's a lot of room to do that even more severely. I don't think it's something one should advocate for or celebrate unless they're secretly rooting for the eventual civil war. So you think the US should ignore that Trump made a real attempt overturn the election and instigated an actual insurrection where a mob stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the certification to prevent a potential civil war? news flash, as far as those people are concerned it already is a civil war and in fact you can trace this entire divide in the US back to failing to properly deal with the civil war 160 years ago. The question of to what extent I personally think Trump should be prosecuted or whether I think he should be kept off the ballot is not something I've thought a lot about. I don't like Trump and I don't like talking about Trump. This is probably the most I've contributed in any Trump-themed conversation in this thread since it's existed. I was simply making the point that I think the Trump indictments are at least partially politically motivated because I don't think we'd have a criminal trial over Stormy Daniels if Trump wasn't seeking re-election. After that the conversation got away from me. The "what should be done here" is a question someone else can answer.
I can respect this. It feels a bit unfair to start the conversation without being willing to answer "What could be done better?" but that's fine. We'd all be talking about Trump a whole lot less if he had never run for president, and while I agree nobody would be looking at some of this stuff in that timeline, I don't think the fact that has been looked at now is a bad thing. The obvious alternative to the parties cross-checking each other is to trust the parties to keep their own shit clean, and uhh... they obviously can't be trusted in that capacity. Sure, it's getting worse over time, but I think it's fair to say a lot of it getting worse was started by the person we're talking about too often.
I don't think the path AWAY from civil war is to let this person continue to irresponsibly stress-test the 'honesty and fairness' left in the US political system. He's obviously willing to do anything to win, and we've already seen him directly challenge the normal peaceful handoff of power, among many other normal US conventions.
|
The line that Trump is merely being held to a higher level scrutiny would be valid if democrats believed it for a single solitary second when it comes to their own candidates. Take for example Joe Biden. The dem echo-chamber narrative is that there is no evidence he did anything wrong. Yet there is a mountain of facts otherwise (that aren't covered inside the dem echo chamber). For example, during the time that Joe was VP and in charge of US policy towards Ukraine, his son was on the board of Ukraine's main natural gas player and about 20,000 emails were exchanged between the VP's office and his son's company Rosemont Seneca. People who are serious about the rule of law don't just dismiss that sort of thing.
That's just one small example too. Those classified docs Joe had that the dem MSM pretends were returned as soon as they were found? The actual narrative CNN pushed is that the person who "found" them was just packing up boxes. Yet that person is a former white house lawyer who charges upwards of $2000/hr for her time.
When it comes to presidents and presidential candidates, hypocrisy about the "rule of law" matters a lot. It's actually dangerous for the country to selectively apply the law to this group of people.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
On January 24 2024 06:29 King_Charles_III wrote:
The line that Trump is merely being held to a higher level scrutiny would be valid if democrats believed it for a single solitary second when it comes to their own candidates. Take for example Joe Biden. The dem echo-chamber narrative is that there is no evidence he did anything wrong. Yet there is a mountain of facts otherwise (that aren't covered inside the dem echo chamber). For example, during the time that Joe was VP and in charge of US policy towards Ukraine, his son was on the board of Ukraine's main natural gas player and about 20,000 emails were exchanged between the VP's office and his son's company Rosemont Seneca. People who are serious about the rule of law don't just dismiss that sort of thing.
That's just one small example too. Those classified docs Joe had that the dem MSM pretends were returned as soon as they were found? The actual narrative CNN pushed is that the person who "found" them was just packing up boxes. Yet that person is a former white house lawyer who charges upwards of $2000/hr for her time.
When it comes to presidents and presidential candidates, hypocrisy about the "rule of law" matters a lot. It's actually dangerous for the country to selectively apply the law to this group of people.
Trump is not being held to a higher level of scrutiny. Barack Obama was scrutinized by Republicans and the political machine, and nothing was found. Hillary Clinton was scrutinized by Republicans and the political machine, and nothing was found. Joe Biden was scrutinized by Republicans and the political machine, and nothing was found. Just because Trump has actually committed political crimes doesn't mean that the others - who didn't commit them - weren't still being constantly attacked and investigated.
You can blindly assert that if a Democrat committed the same insane levels of election fraud, coup planning, intentional classified document stealing, or tax fraud that Trump did, that the Democrat wouldn't ever be investigated, but your assertion would be unfounded. And that's because Democrats haven't done those things. Trump has committed uniquely heinous crimes (and your Biden VP claim is nonsense).
|
|
|
On January 24 2024 07:12 JimmiC wrote:
It is funny how discussions about Trump are never about how’s he’s innocent, but rather whether or not it’s “fair” to prosecute him for the crimes he has committed.
It's the classic "whataboutism" / red herring, except the other politicians never actually did - let alone bragged about - the same crimes that Trump is indicted for and has admitted to. "Oh, you think Trump should be investigated for trying to overthrow our election results and undermine our national security? But what about that time that Obama wore a tan suit, or when Hillary deleted her emails, or the fact that Biden has a son who takes dick pics?"
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On January 24 2024 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2024 07:12 JimmiC wrote:
It is funny how discussions about Trump are never about how’s he’s innocent, but rather whether or not it’s “fair” to prosecute him for the crimes he has committed.
It's the classic "whataboutism" / red herring, except the other politicians never actually did - let alone bragged about - the same crimes that Trump is indicted for and has admitted to. "Oh, you think Trump should be investigated for trying to overthrow our election results and undermine our national security? But what about that time that Obama wore a tan suit, or when Hillary deleted her emails, or the fact that Biden has a son who takes dick pics?"
It’s especially fun when you get accused of hypocrisy ahead of one’s position even being put forth in that obnoxious ‘gotcha’ way
‘Hur hur you wouldn’t say the same if it were (insert Dem politician here)’
Well actually, I would, as have, either explicitly or tacitly others in this thread also indicated.
It’s just hard to take seriously, it’s like somebody pointing out I have a bit of food smear on my cheek while studiously ignoring me pointing out that they’ve just shit themselves. Hey I’ll absolutely brush my face but perhaps you’ve got a bit more pressing a concern to be dealing with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
