281–290 of 1001 posts
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…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier 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. Also, Al Capone was indicted for what?
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy is a fucking criminal and this is long overdue. Your rant is unhinged.
0 convictions and he's a criminal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My knowledge of political events is sparse because I haven't dedicated the time it takes to acquire the prerequisite knowledge. However, I'd be interested in learning more from those here who do have that knowledge and are willing to share perspective on these sort of events. In general, I think it's valuable to be curious about things you're not necessarily interested in.
I like hearing and considering arguments to change the status quo. I already understand the status quo, so I don't enjoy hearing arguments which defend the status quo.
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.
At the same time there is a different dimension to jailing political leaders, which is why Nixon was pardoned. In countries like Ukraine and Georgia, they have recently jailed their presidents or opponents. Yanukovich jailed Timushenko. Saakashvili was jailed. This can wreak a lot of havoc in a country. Look at how the supporters of Imran Khan are reacting, as his opponents always try to arrest him: https://en.m.wiki…
Nixon was pardoned, but he also resigned and quit politics.
Political leaders are easy to replace, which means that the bar for replacing them should be low. If a leader is accused with crimes and the charges seem plausible enough, they are expected to resign to avoid a divisive trial. Similarly, unless the charges are particularly serious, the other side is expected to pardon the accused. Then the former leader is expected to quit politics and stop being a problem.
This all happens, because political leaders are supposed to care about national interests. Granting a disgraced leader a dignified exit and a chance for a peaceful retirement is often a good idea, as long as the former leader agrees to remain a former leader. On the other hand, pardoning active politicians is about as bad idea as anything can be. That way you get entitled leaders who consider themselves above the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
> Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power. It’s scary that we have to set this precedent, but it’d be scarier if we don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the lamest, least armed “overthrowers” of a government ever? ;)
Yeah kinda funny how the same people who claim the Second Amendment is useless because "you stand no chance against the military" also think the government was >this< close to being overthrown by a bunch of unarmed yokels.
[flagged]
While at face value it looks like this charge is a weird and probably bad use of political capital, with what we do know I don't think Joe Everyman should be getting away with embezzling political campaign donations to pay off strippers. There's an argument to be made that the charge is weak but definitely not that it's innocuous...
For me, it's more that these crimes he's accused of really pale in comparison to other things we've seen Trump say and do, like the two things he was impeached for.