[flagged]
Innocuous?
Yes
Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
291–300 of 1001 posts
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#292[deleted]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm 100% in support of applying the law to all people. What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.
[flagged]
Many Americans see themselves as rebels. Funny thing is many of the most vociferous so-called rebels are nothing more than bullies and aggressors. People who already hold most of the power, and are "rebelling" only at the fact that their victims are starting to struggle a bit under their grip.
There's nothing "rebellious" about being a wealthy real estate baron and casino owner. And nothing "rebellious" about supporting him, either. It's rather, kind of the opposite.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again I'm sorry, I'll try to reword it to come across differently. My whole question is: Why hasn't he been indicted of bigger/harsher crimes already?
Criminal investigations, especially when the subject is this high-profile, move very slowly.
I guess my question is more like
did he or did he not incite an insurrection on January 6th? there was an entire committee about it. he did, right? ok... so... not indicted, got it, moves slowly
did he have classified documents when he shouldn't have? yes. not indicted
did he do something wrong in regards to votes in georgia? yes. not indicted
i guess i just don't get it shrug it's as if like... based on the fact that he hasn't been indicted, you can conclude... he didn't do anything illegal, because if he did, he'd be indicted, right?
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#295This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…
[flagged]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I think that's overstated. First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king". Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting presiden…
This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour bef…
Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#297This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…
eh, i'm guessing nothing much will come of it and no one will much care. everytime people are freaking out online about something, that's how it goes. give it a week. but it opens the door to some funny possibilities. my guess is--if it comes to it--biden will pardon trump, which would be very funny. another interesting scenario is if trump goes to jail, he can still run for president, and honestly, i think that woul…
[flagged]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#298LegalEagle has quite a few videos on the various investigations into Trump, his organization, and his associates if you're curious about process: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle/search?query=grand%20jur... He'll probably have a video out on this soon.
LegalEagle posted a video about it last week, though I don't know if new details have emerged since then.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#299This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…
> I'm just astounded that the centrist blob thinks that they can get away with this utilizing a largely right-wing military Trump pissed off all the higher ups at the military. And what would they do anyways? Start overturning jury results they don't like? That's effectively military rule, and they know that'd just end in disaster.
[flagged]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#300Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty of this crime. Should we ignore it? If we further acknowledge that he is a nitwit without an inkling of knowledge about history, respect for democracy or the United States unless it aligns with his aggrandizement, then is this not like trying to nail Al Capone for tax fraud? Are their supposedly intelligent people on this forum who truly believe Donald Trum…
Most countries immunize declared candidates for parliaments or the presidency, because it's a basic premise of democracy. If the population, by direct referendum, believes this person should be in government, whatever forces that are doing the prosecuting are a minority.
Makes sense to have some minor flexibility in this standard, so people aren't continually running for elections in order to stay out of prison. But if (for example) a criminal like K. Fujimori is running for president of Peru, she is obviously a serious candidate and shouldn't be legally threatened.