Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

Post by djha-skin » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

poulsbohemian wrote: post #167

I know it is campaign finance fraud that is the actual charge, but that fact that of all the possible things they could have charged him with, it's something tied to a sexual act feels so both disappointing and so American. It's likely they can actually get a conviction, so I guess there's that. You can already assume right-wing media will spin this into "Really? All you could get him for was a BJ?" Feels a bit like…

Post by stanleydrew » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

mbgerring wrote: post #55

Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #234

sashank_1509 wrote: post #199

Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks: 1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US: This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 diff…

>Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? Your post is a lot of meta talk and very short on actual....crimes. The idea behind this indictment is that Trump broke the law as a citizen. Not that he did stuff in office that people dislike. Which law did Obama break which you think he evaded prosecution for on account of being president. Please be specific.

Post by nitwit005 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #196

nitwit005 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Trump pissed off all the higher ups at the military. Absolutely true, but the vast bulk of the military lean Trumpy, and the generals will sort themselves out based on their self interests. > 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. It's weird how you can talk about a military coup as if it's an impos…

Post by dmix » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:27 AM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #169

mbgerring wrote: post #55

Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.

> 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…