651–660 of 1001 posts
Pretty weak case. Is this really what they go after Trump for? Not sure this emboldens the belief in the rule of law either way, as this is clearly politically motivated.
How do you know? The charges are sealed.
Also there are 34 charges, and 12 people agreed there is substancial evidence to go ahead with the case.
I commented on my understanding of the situation on reddit a while ago. Copy/pasting here: He paid off Stormy Daniels to keep her from talking about their relationship. Paying her to stay silent is 100% legal, there is absolutely no issue with an NDA like that. The illegal part isn't the what, it's the how. Political campaigning laws set a limited budget for how much money you can spend on campaigning, which is defin…
I'm pretty sure there is no cap on how much Trump was allowed to spend on his own campaign; that's why US politics is filled with so many rich people spending so much on their campaigns for office (sometimes for very little effect, as happened with Bloomberg). What's capped is how much any single other individual can contribute. Also, it's probably not all that clear that the payment should count as campaigning; if I…
> Candidate contributions to their own campaigns are not subject to any limits.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...
I'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…
NY grand juries (regular people) do all of the actual work without prompting from the DA. The only thing the DA does is provide witnesses and physical evidence and read the laws relating to the evidence. The grand jury asks all the questions of the witnesses and reviews all the evidence. Then they vote to indict or not in private. The DA asks if they voted and how. They report their votes. At no point is the DA coerc…
Not to cut against your point, but just want to clarify that 247 years ago was 1776, which is not when our judicial system was founded. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, wasn't ratified until 1781 and did not include a judiciary. The second constitution, which created the judicial branch, didn't go into effect until March 4, 1789. Subsequently, the judicial system was established by the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but they weren't being persecuted for obviously political reasons. Usually the ruling class avoids eating their own because they know then that the guillotine can come for them. But in this case, Trump is too much of a danger to the war-machine establishment. Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier and improperly reported it and was fined for it. They didn't try to press criminal charges against her for that or for…
> Did you notice how talk of Trump's crimes related to classified documents disappeared completely after Biden was found with improperly handled classified documents? Well, it could also be because Biden's discovery (a) was smaller and self-reported, (b) his legal team helped in resolving the situation, AND (c) the documents have been recovered in both cases and the ball is now in competent authority's court. It's li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps. There would also be justifiable outrage by reasonable people. Pardoning Trump would continue the example set by Gerald Ford in pardoning Nixon. "Helping the country heal" seems hollow to me. To use a few metaphors: 1. Physical healing can't properly happen until the foreign object is cleared and infection removed from the body. 2. Mental healing doesn't fully happen until person comes to terms with what's ha…
[flagged]
> And a large portion of the American public have been traumatized by Biden forcing them to take a medical treatment they didn't want or lose their jobs, in violation of the Nuremberg code.
I take the point that what people think is trauma can be subjective. If people come to believe what Fox News is saying about Biden, they actually can and do become upset.
The difference is a matter of truth. When Tucker Carlson and Fox News lie in order to generate outrage, we are in a different ballgame.
Also, there is considerable historical precedent and rationality for vaccinations. Furthermore, there are checks and balances on this kind of executive decision. Some of Bidens executive orders have been blocked by the courts, but not the vaccination policy.
I think one deeper underlying question here is "what is truth and justice and how do we get closer to it?"
Trump has shown few or no indications that he seeks truth or justice.
The preponderance of evidence suggests that Trump is all about himself. Whatever flaws Biden may have, he demonstrates broader goals than aggrandizing himself.
Let's say I grant (for the sake of argument, not because I have seen convincing evidence) that Biden did make poor decisions regarding Hunter: it is a still a step forward to do something for your son rather than yourself. If those things were unethical or illegal, at least they were in the service of someone else.
Trump's obvious nepotism is for his own benefit, not his children. He demands loyalty like an autocrat. I see no indications of an ethical code.
Perhaps if other recent elites were prosecuted for lying the United States into wars or openly advocating for torture, I would have a bit more patience for prosecuting Trump's bad bedroom behavior.
I am reminded of Clinton's Lewinsky scandal. Although I was very young at the time, it seemed so trivial in comparison to the magnitude of the office. The next administration went on to destabilize the Middle East under false pretenses. Where was the equivalent outrage for, "Lying to congress" ?
The president is largely a figurehead and a politician foremost. There's nothing honest or reputable about the profession. They could be uncharitably described as professional liars. Their sexual peccadilloes are of no interest to me. The obsession with their bedroom activities seems totally dysfunctional. These people should not be idolized or presented as a standard of behavior in any regard, much less for their sex lives.
Hard not to see this as yet another "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment for party politics and US democracy. Outstanding issues remain, such as the existing wars, new wars and serious economic issues. Given this context, under what standard is it relevant how Mr. Trump paid a sex worker?
I wish the best for the US and the world at large, but this is just insane. For those somnambulists who are under the influence of this illusion, for those who think this is a rational endeavor which is not symptomatic of a much larger dysfunction - Please, I implore you to take a step back and examine the bigger picture. Consider a brief glance in the mirror as well.
There are three classes of countries, as I see it, that indict or jail leaders out-of-power in the opposition. (1) dictatorships like Myanmar (2) quasi-dictatorships acting under a veil of democracy, like Brazil (3) places on the brink of civil rupture, like Israel.
To say that this was intended by the Constitution of a breakaway American Republic is mad, because no sane English colonist would have chosen to renounce the crown if they'd known an idiot like Donald J Trump would be President 200 years later. Of course power should be held to account! As many people here have said, Presidents that committed war crimes would be a better target for prosecution. Or Trump's own crimes in office would be.
This prosecution under these auspices and for these reasons places us (Americans) squarely in the realm of third world semi-democracies.
I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but I hope Joe Biden will be wise enough to immediately issue Trump a pardon and bring this to a close. If Trump is indicted again for something serious, like insurrection, that would be a different matter. It's not possible to divide politics from law in a case where the defendant has a rabid political following and was the President of the country (as insane as that seems). Biden needs to pardon him right away.
Pretty weak case. Is this really what they go after Trump for? Not sure this emboldens the belief in the rule of law either way, as this is clearly politically motivated.
> Pretty weak case. How do you know? The charges are sealed. Also there are 34 charges, and 12 people agreed there is substancial evidence to go ahead with the case.
Oh wait, a large percentage of the US population actually IS in jail.
I commented on my understanding of the situation on reddit a while ago. Copy/pasting here: He paid off Stormy Daniels to keep her from talking about their relationship. Paying her to stay silent is 100% legal, there is absolutely no issue with an NDA like that. The illegal part isn't the what, it's the how. Political campaigning laws set a limited budget for how much money you can spend on campaigning, which is defin…
The difficulty here, as I understand it, is that Trump could have plenty of reasons for paying off someone, not all of which are to do with political campaigning. For instance, he could argue that he paid off SD to avoid damage to his relationship with his wife or family, and that it had nothing to do with his campaigning. (In fact, you could argue that this defence is even stronger because he is Donald Trump. He has…
1. Was aware of his relevant actions
2. Was aware the actions are likely to have the relevant effect
3. Acted anyway
and - again, in some legal systems - this creates a presumption of intent. The onus is then on the accused to establish that they had an entirely different intent (in which case they acted "recklessly") or was not actually aware of the consequences (in which case they acted "negligently" because they should have been aware).
I am not a (US) lawyer, so I'm not sure that's the exact legal situation for Trump.