Oh, this is interesting. By the same reasoning, would a grand jury indict companies who pay former employees they fired not to speak ill of them?
No, because that does not violate campaign finance laws.
Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
431–440 of 1001 posts
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#432I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying progra…
[deleted]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#433Inciting a legion of goons to attack the White House is one thing, but paying hush money to a porn star is on a whole new level; that just can't be ignored. No siree.
If it makes you feel better, he's also going to be indicted for that in the near future.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#434Alright 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…
> please quiz yourself what worldview would brag about being hated by UN. If you cant understand, you literally can't understand anything about ~48% of the country
For a non-American, could someone kindly explain what worldview would brag about being hated by UN?
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#435Earlier 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…
Just to clarify. The King of the UK is above criminal law. The monarch of the UK cannot be arrested or charged with an offence, or be personally involved in criminal proceedings. That is similar to the immunity given to the sitting US President. What is different is that monarch is not really expected to obey the law either. For example, the Prime Minister was fined for illegally not wearing a seatbelt. If the king d…
This short article gives a better explanation than I could ever give at this hour of the morning: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/what-does-qu...
What is sovereign immunity?
Sovereign immunity is a centuries-old doctrine dictating that the monarch cannot be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law. Its origin lies in doctrine and convention, rather than statute, and there is no law setting out the rules underpinning the concept.
It stems partly from the medieval concept that the monarch is the source of justice, and can therefore do no wrong. It also relies on an argument that because the courts belong to the Queen she cannot be compelled to appear in them, since she would, in effect, be prosecuting herself.
Since at least 1800, the monarch has also had a legally distinct private persona, created to allow them to have independent wealth and property that could be inherited by their children. However, the lines between the two are somewhat blurred, and sovereign immunity has typically been interpreted to apply to both the public and private identities of the monarch.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your point and understanding both sides of the country is very important, but so also is justice. I mean, what if he is guilty? If 48% of the population is ticked off by a guilty conviction that theoretically could be correct, that shouldn't stop us from convicting a criminal. I'm not saying Trump is a criminal; I am not on the jury and do not have the facts. But I'm saying someone should be convicted if…
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Should Joe Biden be prosecuted for negligently storing classified documents in his home? Every person in the US is guilty of some baseline level of criminality, and the more “interesting” your life, the more crimes you are likely to have committed. If the US wants to have non-criminal presidents then it should reform its vast state and federal criminal codes so that su…
Bad example to use there because Trump will very possibly be indicted for doing the same, but much worse, in terms of his own classified information!
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#437Alright 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…
> please quiz yourself what worldview would brag about being hated by UN. If you cant understand, you literally can't understand anything about ~48% of the country For a non-American, could someone kindly explain what worldview would brag about being hated by UN?
FWIW UN peacekeepers have a pretty horrible reputation for worldwide rape and sexual abuse. Not to say they do it more than others, but I wouldn't want to be associated with them.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/11/un-peacekeeping-has-sexu...
https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-pakistan-africa-se...
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#438I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments, and none of them, describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters, most stories are vague. The charges relate to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, but hush money is not a crime. It's also not a crime to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is. My understand…
From what I read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see.
Also, from everything I've read, well defended people are remarkably hard to convict. This is as it should be, as it may let some people go scot free, but protects the rest of us.
Convicting Trump will be hard. It might fail. Does this mean that charges should not be brought in the first place? That's a question I don't know how to answer, for any "white collar" or prominent defendant.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#439Alright 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…
The most criminal president in history is Trump by virtue of two impeachments, with one getting huge crossover support.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#440There's a lot of questions I think to what extent politicians (or appointed government offcials) should be accountable when they leave office. I think the poster child for this is Henry Kissenger. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/uk.kissinger/... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326306/
The tricky questions are all around things officials did in their official capacity. But crimes allegedly committed during the campaign prior to becoming a government official are not in this gray area.