Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[UriUT]

He already did that when he was President. It would be nothing new if he somehow is President again.

He was "restraint" in his first term to the leadership. We are talking pervasively across the entire DOJ and FBI. Think loyalty pledge as he is now pledging.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Here is where context comes into play, in my opinion. "Buying a round" at a bar, is a frequent plot device in fiction, so it would be understandable if people who watch too many movies would think that. I'm guessing a Democrat would likely think "Champagne cocktail for me!" but a Republican would think, "That guy's had one too many."

But you are no less likely to be right than I, that's for sure.

No, I would actually be more likely to be right than you here. I don't have to make completely unbelievable assertions to support my conclusions because I am not the person that has to defend a known habitual liar. That is the sole reason for such an unreasonable conclusion that you think that everyday people would come to if they found themselves in a restaurant when a supposed billionaire comes in and says "food for everyone."

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I wish I had y’all’s certainty. In a popular vote yes. But the electoral system is far more finicky. Biden won by less than 100k votes.

I'm with you here. Trump won the election by 304 v 227 electoral votes in 2016. The difference was less than 80k votes across 3 states, earning him 46 electoral more votes despite having 3M fewer voters than his opponent nationwide.

Biden's results are slightly better, his win in 2020 was due to his wins across 6 states, earning him 306 v 232 electoral votes and 7M more Americans voted for him.

The disbursement of electoral college votes to the states seem to be out of wack, it has given more weight to lesser populated states. The formula needs to be adjusted.

 

[DaveXA]

He was "restraint" in his first term to the leadership. We are talking pervasively across the entire DOJ and FBI. Think loyalty pledge as he is now pledging.

He could do that at the cabinet level, but I don't think he could pull that off beyond that. You'd have a massive uprising from rank and file employees who aren't loyal to the President and would basically cripple those agencies. When people stop getting their checks and government services you'll see massive protests and a real overthrow of a sitting President.

Trump is only as powerful as you let him be.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I am fascinated by all of our Republicans telling us who we should run.

Fair point. I'm happy for you to stick with Biden, naturally.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, I would actually be more likely to be right than you here. I don't have to make completely unbelievable assertions to support my conclusions because I am not the person that has to defend a known habitual liar. That is the sole reason for such an unreasonable conclusion that you think that everyday people would come to if they found themselves in a restaurant when a supposed billionaire comes in and says "food for everyone."

I struggle to find an actual argument to refute in that statement.

 

[DaveXA]

This is the optimistic and hopeful view, but it is also ignoring or minimizing the threat. We have strong institutions, but he weakened them when he had some deterrents. He will be much more emboldened if he gets back in. It’ll be another level of a test to the Republic. Many independents will minimize the threat to justify voting for Trump. People need to appreciate the threat that a 2nd Trump term poses. It’ll be worldwide disaster.

It's absolutely not ignoring or minimizing the threat. I'm just saying it's unlikely and even if he were to somehow get elected again, we'd weather the storm. Sure there will be some collateral damage, but we'll survive.

I do think it will be messy and a real struggle if he gets elected, for sure. And fwiw, I'd be very surprised if he lasts more than a year in office. He's gonna croak at some point imo.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I struggle to find an actual argument to refute in that statement.

You seem to struggle with the truth as well.

 

[DaveXA]

Is anyone considering supporting Newsome as the Democratic nominee?

I know it would be very painful to dump both Biden and Harris, but they may be band aids that need to be torn off sooner rather than later, if the primary goal is to defeat Trump.

I'm also wondering if anyone's thought process is: 'That would be giving into the Republicans and their fake accusations against Biden. That would only encourage more fake accusations.'

Dude, if you think Biden has problems, Newsom is worse. There are a lot of other Democrats who would be better choices for President than that guy.

Fwiw, I wish Biden would announce he's not running because I think he needs to retire. He's getting up there in age as well and I think it's time for a change at the top. I'd rather someone younger, but that's me.

 

[Lapaz]

It's absolutely not ignoring or minimizing the threat. I'm just saying it's unlikely and even if he were to somehow get elected again, we'd weather the storm. Sure there will be some collateral damage, but we'll survive.

I do think it will be messy and a real struggle if he gets elected, for sure. And fwiw, I'd be very surprised if he lasts more than a year in office. He's gonna croak at some point imo.

I disagree that it is unlikely. We got close in his first term, and he will be more emboldened. Do you disagree with that? You are assuming we will weather it, but if he has learned anything and is more Emboldened, then the risk is far higher. I know I don’t want anyone thinking that is okay to vote for him because we can weather him. I know plenty of people will use that line of thought to justify voting for him. When people consider the lesser of 2 evils, assuming they think Democrats are evil, they need to weigh their vote against losing our Republic.

 

[Lapaz]

Is anyone considering supporting Newsome as the Democratic nominee?

I know it would be very painful to dump both Biden and Harris, but they may be band aids that need to be torn off sooner rather than later, if the primary goal is to defeat Trump.

I'm also wondering if anyone's thought process is: 'That would be giving into the Republicans and their fake accusations against Biden. That would only encourage more fake accusations.'

I haven’t studied up on Newsome, but I like the bold move that Newsome signed on zero emissions. It is further than I would’ve gone, but it may be necessary to control carbon dioxide.

 

[MT15]

Expecting normalcy is wishcasting. It is one thing for a Trump supporter to convict some random person. If is wholly different to convict Trump. Trump is their symbol of revolt. I don’t think there is much likelihood of one of his supporters convicting him. They don’t think rationally when he is involved. Look at Snarky’s comments. He has justified nullification. I also think they will follow his requests to nullify other cases to “help” the cause. The foundation of our Justice system is vulnerable and at stake.

Trump (or The Trump Organization) was the defendant.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Expecting normalcy is wishcasting. It is one thing for a Trump supporter to convict some random person. If is wholly different to convict Trump. Trump is their symbol of revolt. I don’t think there is much likelihood of one of his supporters convicting him. They don’t think rationally when he is involved. Look at Snarky’s comments. He has justified nullification. I also think they will follow his requests to nullify other cases to “help” the cause. The foundation of our Justice system is vulnerable and at stake.

I would respectfully argue that it is the weaponization of the justice system against political rivals that has put the justice system at stake.

Time to remove those partisan activists masquerading as professional investigators and prosecutors.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I would respectfully argue that it is the weaponization of the justice system against political rivals that has put the justice system at stake.

Time to remove those partisan activists masquerading as professional investigators and prosecutors.

OMFG! This again? lol

 

[superchuck500]

I would respectfully argue that it is the weaponization of the justice system against political rivals that has put the justice system at stake.

Time to remove those partisan activists masquerading as professional investigators and prosecutors.

Question: when is it proper and, likewise, not proper to press federal charges against a national politician? I'm asking for a generic answer about how it should work, not "Clinton and Biden did this, Trump did that, blah blah." How should it actually work?

Fundamentally, the federal prosecutor's office operates under a cabinet secretary to the president. Federal prosecutions are impossible to sever from the executive branch, which is in the end, a political operation. At the same time, the federal criminal law is statutory, and intended to be objective, and applied to conduct by judges and juries, not prosecutors. I think we would all as Americans agree that generally speaking, no one is above the law and when a person, even if a national politician, breaks the law - especially in a non-trivial way - it is appropriate to prosecute that law-breaking.

So naturally it's easy to say that if a federal prosecution is opened against a national politician of the party opposite of the president, it has a political angle to it. But it can't simply be that every such prosecution is a political weaponization of the Justice Department regardless of the underlying facts and criminal charges. So what is the answer to you?

Would you agree that federal prosecution of a national politician of the other party who murders his wife on a cruise ship isn't political weaponization of the Justice Department? What about a federal prosecution of a national politician of the other party who is directly involved with an interstate opioid trafficking operation - is that political weaponization of the Justice Department? What about a federal prosecution of a national politician of the other party who has spent years deliberately filing false tax returns and hiding millions of dollars in income - is that political weaponization of the Justice Department?

How are we to tell when it is one and not the other?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Question: when is is proper and, likewise, not proper to press federal charges against a national politician? I'm asking for a generic answer about how it should work, not "Clinton and Biden did this, Trump did that, blah blah." How should it actually work?

Superchuck, thanks for the question and well thought-out post. I got shirt to do, so I'm going to briefly answer the above question and come back and expand on the rest of your post.

I don't think it will ever be cut and dried as in "in this case we press, in this case we do not."

We very much need to agree on a standard, which will take lots of negotiation.

If we were able to set a standard, there would be debate over each close case about whether it most meets the "press charges" or the "do not press charges" standard. That debate most likely be divided over party lines.

I'll negotiate with myself for a while and come up with a generic answer, if I can.

 

[Taurus]

He could do that at the cabinet level, but I don't think he could pull that off beyond that. You'd have a massive uprising from rank and file employees who aren't loyal to the President and would basically cripple those agencies.

This is the goal.

 

[Lapaz]

Trump (or The Trump Organization) was the defendant.

Ok, but I believe a supporter won’t convict Trump most times.