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

 

[FullMonte]

“But on the rare occasions I do get angry, watch out!”

LOL…something like that

 

[SFIDC3]

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.

Yup, for folks not to realize this is kind of scary....probably the same folks who were shocked when Jan 6th happened......I'm not willfully naive enough to think "we will be just fine".....we were very close to not fine back then.....

I'll say this if something similar happens again in DC with folks breaking into a building I hope the order is "fire at will".....

 

[DaveXA]

This is the goal.

I'm sure it's the goal of some, particularly radicals, but for reasonable people, not so much.

 

[brandon]

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?

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?

Take a bow. Excellent post.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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

We, as a country, already have. It's called equal justice under the law. It's even engraved in stone at the supreme court. It's also a bedrock for the 14th Amendment.

 

[DaveXA]

We, as a country, already have. It's called equal justice under the law. It's even engraved in stone at the supreme court. It's also a bedrock for the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, acting like a standard hasn't been agreed to is a pretty absurd and ignorant approach to this subject. He knows better.

 

[UriUT]

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.

I believe to be a dangerous assumption, and vastly underestimate the power of the presidency. I used to believe that the checks and balance suffice to restrict the presidency from abuse. With just one term from Trump, I am left to believe that the only check aside from impeachment and conviction by the senate (even this has limitations as McConnell's own vote against conviction even though he knows Trump was culpable), is the President's personal respect for our Constitution. Let's begin with the premise that if the government function is crippled, folks will rise and demand power back. I can point to one example that counters this argument. Trump installed the DeJoy as postmaster general. He proceeds to remove most or all auto sorter machines (some brand new) prior to the election, no doubt to harm the Dem's chances as most of their ballots were mail ballots. The consequences were that mail were slow and often lost. I remember stories from small business owners needing to eat the fees and lost product for sending their product via UPS to replace the lost original item in the USPS system. What was once the most efficient arm of the government was crippled. This wasn't unique and caused mass complaints; yet even now we cannot remove him. The idea that some 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck caring that Trump mass fires DOJ prosecutors or FBI agents is a bit optimistic. He fired FBI agents investigating him and nothing was done. I'm not saying Americans don't care in general. They have more pressing needs, which is why economy is always the vital issue. And what about Congress? The subpoenas were bogged down in the courts and virtually useless as it needed to be referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

The potential abuse of power from a President that doesn't personally respect our Constitution and the norms of our institutions is real, especially when the Unitary Executive Theory is real and accepted in our judiciary.

I'm sure it's the goal of some, particularly radicals, but for reasonable people, not so much.

Do we agree that most Republicans are radical today?

 

[DaveXA]

I believe to be a dangerous assumption, and vastly underestimate the power of the presidency. I used to believe that the checks and balance suffice to restrict the presidency from abuse. With just one term from Trump, I am left to believe that the only check aside from impeachment and conviction by the senate (even this has limitations as McConnell's own vote against conviction even though he knows Trump was culpable), is the President's personal respect for our Constitution. Let's begin with the premise that if the government function is crippled, folks will rise and demand power back. I can point to one example that counters this argument. Trump installed the DeJoy as postmaster general. He proceeds to remove most or all auto sorter machines (some brand new) prior to the election, no doubt to harm the Dem's chances as most of their ballots were mail ballots. The consequences were that mail were slow and often lost. I remember stories from small business owners needing to eat the fees and lost product for sending their product via UPS to replace the lost original item in the USPS system. What was once the most efficient arm of the government was crippled. This wasn't unique and caused mass complaints; yet even now we cannot remove him. The idea that some 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck caring that Trump mass fires DOJ prosecutors or FBI agents is a bit optimistic. He fired FBI agents investigating him and nothing was done. I'm not saying Americans don't care in general. They have more pressing needs, which is why economy is always the vital issue. And what about Congress? The subpoenas were bogged down in the courts and virtually useless as it needed to be referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

The potential abuse of power from a President that doesn't personally respect our Constitution and the norms of our institutions is real, especially when the Unitary Executive Theory is real and accepted in our judiciary.


Do we agree that most Republicans are radical today?

Too many, certainly, most? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think most want to cripple the government. Certainly now willingly. I do think most don't think that's what Trump wants to do even though it was clear during his administration he was going that direction.

I would say that he'd only have 4 years to do it. He's not a king and he'd be somewhat more limited, particularly pending these court cases and I think he loses the cooperation of Congress, which he would need to some degree to accomplish whatever agenda he has.

And, I think he'd have a hard time because for all the support Republicans in Congress have given him, they all have friends who work in government, and it's optimistic I agree, but these people walking the halls of Congress are not gonna let Trump bring the government to it's knees. There just too much money and too many people who would be harmed by what Trump would allegedly do.

Regardless, I don't think he gets elected anyway.

 

[Snarky Sack]

We, as a country, already have. It's called equal justice under the law. It's even engraved in stone at the supreme court. It's also a bedrock for the 14th Amendment.

Including sitting presidents?

 

[DaveXA]

Including sitting presidents?

Well, there's debate what should apply to sitting presidents, and some haven't been tested in the courts. The question is what are the limits when it comes to presidents. The language is there though.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Including sitting presidents?

Since Trump isn't the sitting president, this is irrelevant.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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?

I'll start with where we are. The Justice Department has an official and announced policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. They will investigate them, and, if need be, turn over evidence it discovers to Congress. That's were we are, where should we go?

Sorry, superchuck, but I'm going to have say I don't know. I started multiple times to type an opinion, and had to keep deleting my words because I saw the rhetorical traps I was setting for myself.

I think that the DOJ should be extremely careful about prosecuting frontrunners in any political race, much less a presidential one. Other than that, I cannot think of a standard that could be set, even to use as a starting point. What makes a frontrunner? If they drop a half percent below another challenger, can they immediately be arrested and charged? What crime is seriously enough to prosecute even a frontrunner, and what crime can wait?

If your point is that it will be hard to set such a standard, you have made it with me.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Since Trump isn't the sitting president, this is irrelevant.

I wasn't just talking about Trump. The DOJ wouldn't prosecute Biden, and I don't think they should.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I wasn't just talking about Trump. The DOJ wouldn't prosecute Biden, and I don't think they should.

I think we can agree that being the sitting president would change the process. Trump isn't president, though, and that's what this discussion was about. Stop deflecting.

 

[UriUT]

Too many, certainly, most? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think most want to cripple the government. Certainly now willingly. I do think most don't think that's what Trump wants to do even though it was clear during his administration he was going that direction.

I would say that he'd only have 4 years to do it. He's not a king and he'd be somewhat more limited, particularly pending these court cases and I think he loses the cooperation of Congress, which he would need to some degree to accomplish whatever agenda he has.

And, I think he'd have a hard time because for all the support Republicans in Congress have given him, they all have friends who work in government, and it's optimistic I agree, but these people walking the halls of Congress are not gonna let Trump bring the government to it's knees. There just too much money and too many people who would be harmed by what Trump would allegedly do.

Regardless, I don't think he gets elected anyway.

I get that you don't think he will win. I think he has a significantly less than 50% chance myself. The problem, though, is that these R candidates view this as some sort of revenge tour....as the dems "weaponizing" our government (ie...Russia gate). To the point, do you think that the DOJ or FBI has been weaponized by Biden, and that they need to be defunded? Apart from Christie, which candidates won't take this position? Further, who believes that a candidate convicted of a felony shouldn't be allowed to run? 80% of repubs surveyed disagreed with this. Heck Asa Hutchingson wanted to change that pledge and was denied. These I believe are radical positions. Ones that even those survey in 2016 would agree..(cough...lock her up).

As for 4 years isn't long enough, in three months, he fired the sec of def and the attorney general and setup fake electors. The coup plan took less than 3 months! If he is now vowing a revenge tour, what is to stop him? The cowering repubs?That's his agenda. That's it. A persona vendetta.

And we can also examine DeSantis' very illiberal run in FL. He has pressured and coerced the legislature to do his bidding. The irony, one dared endorsed Trump and now complains he is punished for it....his budget for his district was vetoed by DeSantis?

Anyway, I'll stop there as a food for thought....that I don't think optimistically as you that our constitutional republic is safe.

 

[MT15]

I'll start with where we are. The Justice Department has an official and announced policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. They will investigate them, and, if need be, turn over evidence it discovers to Congress. That's were we are, where should we go?

Sorry, superchuck, but I'm going to have say I don't know. I started multiple times to type an opinion, and had to keep deleting my words because I saw the rhetorical traps I was setting for myself.

I think that the DOJ should be extremely careful about prosecuting frontrunners in any political race, much less a presidential one. Other than that, I cannot think of a standard that could be set, even to use as a starting point. What makes a frontrunner? If they drop a half percent below another challenger, can they immediately be arrested and charged? What crime is seriously enough to prosecute even a frontrunner, and what crime can wait?

If your point is that it will be hard to set such a standard, you have made it with me.

I don’t really see how you can use a candidate’s supposed status as front runner or not as any sort of criteria. Front runner according to whom? Polls aren’t accurate, as we have seen. Plus anyone can construct a poll to get the answers they are looking for, in general.

I’m not sure I agree with the DOJ policy of never indicting a sitting president. Presumably the DOJ is under the direction of the sitting president’s own AG, therefore we don’t need to worry about political implications - not in the grossest sense. If a sitting president commits egregious and serious crimes, the DOJ should probably proceed. I have lost faith in the impeachment process because we have seen it fail to hold a sitting president accountable. I’m not extremely bothered by the current DOJ policy though, and I can see why they adopted it.

I don’t think being a candidate should give a person any advantage at all, otherwise declaring a candidacy is a get out of jail free card. We all know Justice isn’t entirely blind in the US, money talks. But we shouldn’t give more advantages to the political class than they already have.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I don’t really see how you can use a candidate’s supposed status as front runner or not as any sort of criteria. Front runner according to whom? Polls aren’t accurate, as we have seen. Plus anyone can construct a poll to get the answers they are looking for, in general.

I’m not sure I agree with the DOJ policy of never indicting a sitting president. Presumably the DOJ is under the direction of the sitting president’s own AG, therefore we don’t need to worry about political implications - not in the grossest sense. If a sitting president commits egregious and serious crimes, the DOJ should probably proceed. I have lost faith in the impeachment process because we have seen it fail to hold a sitting president accountable. I’m not extremely bothered by the current DOJ policy though, and I can see why they adopted it.

I don’t think being a candidate should give a person any advantage at all, otherwise declaring a candidacy is a get out of jail free card. We all know Justice isn’t entirely blind in the US, money talks. But we shouldn’t give more advantages to the political class than they already have.

You have some good points.

 

[Snarky Sack]

First of all, this is why I, Snarky Sack, support Trump. To understand why other support Trump, others should be consulted.

Secondly, I support Trump because he puts America first. I thought his candidacy was a joke, pretty much until he was elected and then I wondered how the heck this guy is going to govern?

Sure enough, he governed by acting on his promises. “Acting on,” not fulfilling completely, and I fault him for that.

He negotiated the remain in Mexico agreement, which was great for American citizens. He used tariffs of our own to negotiate more favorable agreements with other countries. This is the key difference between Trump and most presidents before him other than Reagan: Trump negotiated to either get a favorable deal for the U.S. or no deal at all.

Thirdly, at some point, the full extent of the DOJ/FBI pursuit of Trump during and after the election started to become known to the public. That galvanized me and many other Trump supporters. Nothing worse than a government within the government trying to overturn the results of an election.

Since that time, the phrase Illegitimi non carborundum has been reason enough to support Trump.

DeSantis would probably be a better president, depending on how tolerant the Entrenched Bureaucracy would be of him and how much he stood up to them. But I’ll support Trump in the primary.

Note: take as long as you like to reply, if you do. But I won't be responding to your replies today. I'm very sleepy for some reason . . .