Predction: Trump will be pardoned by Biden if he wins

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

You were talking about your opinion of what their concerns were, while ignoring opinions of other concerns that are actually relevant. The only way you could truly be "talking about the concerns of the people who actually get to decide this" would be if you are one of the actual people who actually get to decide this. You are not. I am not. Both of us are merely expressing opinions. Try understanding that before you attempt any more of this Argument from "Authority" nonsense.

Oh, well in that case, it is a mystery what motivates these great decision makers and we must await their judgement. That doesn't make other people's opinions about what should happen relevant to a discussion of what will happen though. Our opinions about what should happen remain unimportant.

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

You seem to assume that the whole country won't turn against Trump at some point in the future. You may be right; his support has been remarkably stable. I am far from convinced that he will maintain that support in perpetuity, however. Things change...sometimes slowly, but things do change. (And I'm not just talking about while he's in office, but afterward, as well).

Right, but do we think they are going to wait until the man is 80 and irrelevant before going after him and exacting their revenge? How often are elites actually punished? Maybe the noble Biden will usher in a brave new world where elites are held to account and it isn't just peons that go to jail, but I really, really don't think so. Once the political need to try to remove Trump is gone, almost all the impetus to get him will go too.

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Now I strongly disagree with this: Consider the following scenario. Trump gets pardoned (maybe by himself, maybe by Pence) for any and all federal crimes. New York state decides to prosecute Trump (you just finally acknowledged a state could decide to do this, after all). NY could obtain a conviction and the federal govt decides to let it stand (do they have a choice? I'm honestly not sure) specifically because conditions "politically allow it" despite the fact that he is immune federally due to the pardon.

What crime are we talking about here? Crime while in office? A conflict of interest maybe? I don't see it. He'd have to do something as outrageous as personally assassinating Biden and then somehow pardoning himself in a way that no rationale could be found to undo.

This is all fantasy "what ifs" though. Getting Trump once he is out of office just won't be important enough to move Heaven and Earth like this. It may be that he gets a slap on the wrist for this or that, but he will be let go.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's funny, the view on the right of centre folks I interact with is that they believe the left are misguided/naive and that the left view them as evil. They take the accusations like "anybody who voted for Trump is a racist/knowingly supports racism" as an implication that they are terrible people.

If the shoe fits...

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Hell, why are you asking me??? I can't predict the future. I don't even know whether his approval will ever significantly drop or not. You, on the other hand, seem confident that it never will. Are you absolutely convinced of that? If so, you're the one naively thinking you can predict the future, not me.

Nothing in life is certain. My main point is, and has always been, that getting Trump either in or out of office is a political calculation. The fact that notionally he could be prosecuted for some terrible crime that will carry with it a suitably terrible punishment, and you are sure there is enough evidence to convict him, does not remotely mean that he would be prosecuted, or that he would be convicted.

The difficult side of this is not the legal side of it. The difficult side will be gathering the political will to prosecute him for something like Treason (mentioned earlier by another poster) and finding an unbiased jury. That seems so unlikely to me that it hardly seems worth worrying about.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

And your opinion is another fantasy "what if". Quit pretending your opinion is special.

Thanks.

Sure they aren't special. They are just what I think. Other people are saying what they think. I think they are wrong.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It's funny, the view on the right of centre folks I interact with is that they believe the left are misguided/naive and that the left view them as evil. They take the accusations like "anybody who voted for Trump is a racist/knowingly supports racism" as an implication that they are terrible people.

Perhaps they should consider the old adages "When you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas," "You are known by the friends you keep," "Birds of a feather flock together," and "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it's probably a duck."

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Perhaps they should consider the old adages "When you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas," "You are known by the friends you keep," "Birds of a feather flock together," and "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it's probably a duck."

I think they are more likely to think that the Democrats have driven themselves mad and worn out words like "racist" through overuse to the point where huge numbers of people don't take the claims seriously any more.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think they are more likely to think that the Democrats have driven themselves mad and worn out words like "racist" through overuse to the point where huge numbers of people don't take the claims seriously any more.

Any more? They never took them seriously.

He was absolutely correct when he said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Donnie knows his base.

ETA: All those women who came out with accusations of Trump assaulting them along with the Access Hollywood tape before the election are proof of that.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

And they want to destroy the economy.

Given that ONE MAN has as more wealth than the entire bottom half and 10% own nearly 90% of wealth, it's destroying itself. Given the fundamental injustice woven into the ecoomy it SHOULD be destroyed and replaced with a a better one.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

You will not a liberal in, they dont represent a majority view point, never have.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majo...e-college.html

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I'm of the opinion that the reconciliation during Reconstruction was a horrible idea. It just kicked the can down the road and now we are dealing with the consequences. This is a fight that has been brewing for a while, even before Trump, and we need to nip it in the bud now.

The same will happen if we try to make peace with the far-right in this country, so we need to make Trump an example by thoroughly destroying him.

Bingo! The North should have done what the Allies did to Japan and Germany after WW II: completely torn down their political culture and rebuilt it along civilized lines.

Reconstruction wasn't harsh enough by half.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Better to have him stay free than convict somebody that 40% of the population think is innocent because you are super certain he is guilty.

He's not going to jail. That said, I fully expect a thorough investigation and the evidence laid out before the people.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by varwoche

No that won't play out because Trump will grant sweeping self pardons.

Would that be constitutional though?

What if he resigns after the election but before January 20th and Pence pardons him? That seems like it might work. Could be challenged in court though.

Was Ford's pardon of Nixon ever challenged in court?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Quote:

Nothing in life is certain. My main point is, and has always been, that getting Trump either in or out of office is a political calculation. The fact that notionally he could be prosecuted for some terrible crime that will carry with it a suitably terrible punishment, and you are sure there is enough evidence to convict him, does not remotely mean that he would be prosecuted, or that he would be convicted.

The walkback continues. Evidently you have confused yourself:

I am not the one claiming an indictment and conviction of Donald J Trump is a sure thing. Not at all. I'm well aware it's far from certain.

You, on the other hand, were the one claiming it to be an impossibility:

Quote:

There is no possibility of the precedent being set that any random state can convict a former President of acts done in office. Anybody who thinks that that is going to happen is dreaming.

Allow me to rephrase and insert the word "plausible" or "realistic" before "possibility".

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

I disagreed. I continue to disagree. And now, evidently, you do too: "Nothing in life is certain". I agree with that. And that's what I have been trying to tell you all along.

Yes. I was speaking hyperbolically when I said "no possibility". If we took every statement like that as a claim of logical impossibility and argued about it the politics forum would grind to a halt.

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Are you struggling to keep track of your own position? That's how it appears to me.

You are trying to hold me to the literal truth of a hyperbolic statement. There will [not a logical impossibility, I just mean that I think it is very, very unlikely] not be a significant legal consequence for what he has done in power.

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Still struggling to keep track of the topic?

Another poster was. I'm not going to maintain parallel debates with multiple posters simultaneously on the topic. I am arguing against the OP and reacting to other commenters posts as they are made. If Biden decides to pardon Trump it will be because there is no political will to go after him anyway, hence a pardon would not be necessary. Absent of political will I don't see a significant prosecution, that would count as him paying for his actions in office, being successful. I don't think a precedent is going to be set where presidents are held legally accountable for their actions in office. Any attempt to get him prosecuted out of office for the sorts of things democrats think he's done is going to hit the problem that if nothing changes something like 40% of voters will see it as a political hit, and to successfully prosecute him you'd have to keep them out of the jury. Plus what would it do to the country to have 40% of the voters thinking the other side had taken out their guy? Why light a fire like that under his supporters.

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

We're not talking about him being prosecuted for Treason. We're talking about him being prosecuted for anything. You keep walking back your position...He won't ever be prosecuted for anything.........Well, he won't be prosecuted for something like Treason.........Well, his support level would have to be dropped before they attempted to prosecute him.

A previous poster absolutely was talking about Treason, so I mentioned that as an example. This thread isn't about pardoning him for parking fines and library books he failed to return. He has lost court cases and received fines in the past. I doubt too many people will be shocked if that occurs in the future. What I don't see happening to him is a conviction for anything that would be seen as him paying for what he did in office for all the reasons I've discussed.

[This is The End]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You need to convince enough of the population that he is bad enough that he needs to go/be convicted of something big.

You just don't get it. There is literally nothing he can do because enough of the population thinks the "other side", ironically, is satanic. They will write anything off as "there must be a plan".

[Lurch]

The one good thing Drumpf has done is to reveal the glaring problems in a political system reliant upon the kinds of norms that guide people with some shred of a conscience and the capacity for shame.

The cat's now outta the bag. Any bad actor able to wrangle the necessary support could win for himself this most lucrative and promising position from which to engage in all manner of grift and self-aggrandizement. Or help family, friends and confederates to crime and then pardon. Or take down the system itself.

A crucial task awaiting the next crew is to harden the system against this kind of potential for scumbaggery. Right now the state of affairs has effectively put POTUS above the other two branches, and is getting worryingly close to creating a position immune to consequences. Smacks a little too much of a Royalty that's above the law, or at least accorded an unconstitutional deference.

[The Great Zaganza]

Because of the Conservative Bubble, all that a Republican needs to get elected is the backing of FOX and the Sinclair Group.
They are the ones running the campaign

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Allow me to rephrase and insert the word "plausible" or "realistic" before "possibility".


Yes. I was speaking hyperbolically when I said "no possibility". If we took every statement like that as a claim of logical impossibility and argued about it the politics forum would grind to a halt.


You are trying to hold me to the literal truth of a hyperbolic statement. There will [not a logical impossibility, I just mean that I think it is very, very unlikely] not be a significant legal consequence for what he has done in power.


Another poster was. I'm not going to maintain parallel debates with multiple posters simultaneously on the topic. I am arguing against the OP and reacting to other commenters posts as they are made. If Biden decides to pardon Trump it will be because there is no political will to go after him anyway, hence a pardon would not be necessary. Absent of political will I don't see a significant prosecution, that would count as him paying for his actions in office, being successful. I don't think a precedent is going to be set where presidents are held legally accountable for their actions in office. Any attempt to get him prosecuted out of office for the sorts of things democrats think he's done is going to hit the problem that if nothing changes something like 40% of voters will see it as a political hit, and to successfully prosecute him you'd have to keep them out of the jury. Plus what would it do to the country to have 40% of the voters thinking the other side had taken out their guy? Why light a fire like that under his supporters.


A previous poster absolutely was talking about Treason, so I mentioned that as an example. This thread isn't about pardoning him for parking fines and library books he failed to return. He has lost court cases and received fines in the past. I doubt too many people will be shocked if that occurs in the future. What I don't see happening to him is a conviction for anything that would be seen as him paying for what he did in office for all the reasons I've discussed.

Do you have a bar that, once crossed via some crime while in office, would decidedly warrant prosecution?

I assume murder would meet this test? How about rape? How about pilfering from the Treasury? How about leading the scheme to delay the Post for one's own political benefit (which includes the danger of slowing medications, not just ballots)?

All these are crimes we peons would be charged with, in a heartbeat. Just what is the country willing to give a POTUS a pass on? Should it be anything every other citizen would not be? If so, why should we accord such a privilege to just one person, when one of the most foundational tenets of the nation is that no one is above the law? To actually apply a more lenient standard to one man is to put the lie to the claim, and admit to a very real hypocrisy, a non-uniform application of law. The kind of unfairness that is a degradation, a cause for societal apathy and decay.

[uke2se]

If Trump tries to pardon himself, that's going to be a pretty big legal battle as well. Not everyone agrees that he can legally do that.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by uke2se

If Trump tries to pardon himself, that's going to be a pretty big legal battle as well. Not everyone agrees that he can legally do that.

I shudder to think about what Trump will demand of Trump in compensation for pardoning him.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Because of the Conservative Bubble, GOP election rigging all that a Republican needs to get elected is the backing of FOX and the Sinclair Group.
They are the ones running the campaign

FIFY

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by uke2se

If Trump tries to pardon himself, that's going to be a pretty big legal battle as well. Not everyone agrees that he can legally do that.

Okay. Trump has zero problem doing things that everyone agrees he can't do. Doing something that only "not everyone" agrees he can't do will be a cakewalk for him.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

... Nixon's approval went down to 24% with 60% and rising of the public agreeing he needed to go. So it's clearly possible for a scandle to get a President down to a level where both sides agree they need to go.

There are two important differences between then and now:

1. In sufficient part, the GOP wasn't comprised of cultists and enablers.

2. There wasn't a massive alternate fact bubble.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by uke2se

If Trump tries to pardon himself, that's going to be a pretty big legal battle as well. Not everyone agrees that he can legally do that.

Indeed. But that won't stop him. It's a freebie. All upside, no downside.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Nixon's approval went down to 24% with 60% and rising of the public agreeing he needed to go. So it's clearly possible for a scandle to get a President down to a level where both sides agree they need to go.

This is a very dangerous comparison and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Trump is doing.

Nixon's approval rating dropped like a rock when what Nixon had done made it into the public eye. Over a (relatively) short period of time Nixon, who history often forgets was massively popular (we will never see an EC spread like 1972 again), lost popularity because of a rapid fire sequences of events (The Saturday Night Massacre, the release of the tapes, the smoking gun tape, etc) that brought information about what Nixon was doing into the public eye. There never was any big social discussion about what whether or not what Nixon was doing was wrong.

Trump could not be further from this. What he's doing isn't being hidden, indeed he's publicly bragging about it. Trump has fifty "Nixon Moments" before breakfast on an average day.

Trump openly admitted to doing what he was impeached for doing what about 4, 5 days was it into this impeachment proceedings and he's still in office.

There's no smoking gun with Trump because he's holding the gun in his hand and firing it all the time while screaming "LOOKIT ME I'M SHOOTING THE GUN RIGHT NOW! EVERYBODY SEE ME SHOOTING THE GUN! WATCH ME SHOOT THE GUN!"

Nixon didn't "LOL lookit the triggered libs" for a bunch of reality denying cultists.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

(we will never see an EC spread like 1972 again)

Actually 1984 was even more lopsided in the EC, but narrower in the popular vote. Reagan won 49 states in 84. Nixon also won 49 in 72, but the state he lost had more electors.

[varwoche]

That whirring sound you hear is Howard Baker spinning in his grave.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Do you have a bar that, once crossed via some crime while in office, would decidedly warrant prosecution?

Warrant prosecution is easy. When somebody breaks the law. Obviously we don't have a Gods eye view, so it comes down to our subjective judgement of the claims. I doubt we will agree on very much here when we are talking about Trump.

Originally Posted by Lurch

I assume murder would meet this test? How about rape? How about pilfering from the Treasury? How about leading the scheme to delay the Post for one's own political benefit (which includes the danger of slowing medications, not just ballots)?

Sure, but are we going to agree that that is what has happened? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Lurch

All these are crimes we peons would be charged with, in a heartbeat. Just what is the country willing to give a POTUS a pass on? Should it be anything every other citizen would not be? If so, why should we accord such a privilege to just one person, when one of the most foundational tenets of the nation is that no one is above the law? To actually apply a more lenient standard to one man is to put the lie to the claim, and admit to a very real hypocrisy, a non-uniform application of law. The kind of unfairness that is a degradation, a cause for societal apathy and decay.

Oh, well.... this is a different question from whether a prosecution is warranted. People aren't prosecuted for things that they could be prosecuted for all the time. Rioters are let go by the DA. Whole cities decide to make themselves sanctuaries from particular laws. The President is empowered to pardon people for crimes. If you want the law applied equally to everybody, then there is a much bigger problem than Trump here. In any case, the practical consequences of convicting a President, or an ex-President of a crime, particularly one relating to their time in office is much bigger than the consequences of convicting some random nobody of a crime. Those consequences would be considered by the Washington creatures who make these kinds of calls and influence these kinds of decisions.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by varwoche

There are two important differences between then and now:

1. In sufficient part, the GOP wasn't comprised of cultists and enablers.

2. There wasn't a massive alternate fact bubble.

While not agreeing with the details, I agree that it is going to be harder to convince people. They certainly aren't going to take the word of journalists in the way they once did. What you would need to do to get him out of office early, or make it anything other than a political nightmare to prosecute him for something significant that he did in office once he's out of office is the same as was required with Nixon. The fact that it may be harder to achieve now is unfortunate for you if you want it to happen.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This is a very dangerous comparison and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Trump is doing.

Nixon's approval rating dropped like a rock when what Nixon had done made it into the public eye. Over a (relatively) short period of time Nixon, who history often forgets was massively popular (we will never see an EC spread like 1972 again), lost popularity because of a rapid fire sequences of events (The Saturday Night Massacre, the release of the tapes, the smoking gun tape, etc) that brought information about what Nixon was doing into the public eye. There never was any big social discussion about what whether or not what Nixon was doing was wrong.

Trump could not be further from this. What he's doing isn't being hidden, indeed he's publicly bragging about it. Trump has fifty "Nixon Moments" before breakfast on an average day.

Trump openly admitted to doing what he was impeached for doing what about 4, 5 days was it into this impeachment proceedings and he's still in office.

There's no smoking gun with Trump because he's holding the gun in his hand and firing it all the time while screaming "LOOKIT ME I'M SHOOTING THE GUN RIGHT NOW! EVERYBODY SEE ME SHOOTING THE GUN! WATCH ME SHOOT THE GUN!"

Nixon didn't "LOL lookit the triggered libs" for a bunch of reality denying cultists.

You may well believe all of that. It doesn't matter. The practical reality at the moment is that no President with his kind of approval is remotely likely to be removed from office. No ex-President with his approval is remotely likely to be prosecuted for their actions in office, once they are out of office. The Republican base will view it in exactly the same way as the Democrat base would if Trump had had Obama locked up. The fact that you think locking up Trump would be legitimate and locking up Obama wouldn't be doesn't matter, even if in some Platonic world of objective legal Truth you are in the right. They would think you are in the wrong, and the consequences will be exactly the same as if you were in the wrong.

I just don't think you are going to be able to lock him up without first having his supporters abandon him.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

FIFY

You fixed nothing, tunnel vision leads to blindness.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Let me ask you a question: Why do you think Republicans blocked witnesses at the impeachment hearing? If what you say is literally true, it would make no difference: No matter what the witnesses say, no matter what evidence they provide, Trump is safe due to his approval rating......

....and yet, witnesses were blocked. Why do you think that happened?

Because it was more politically convenient for them to block it than to help the Democrats?

I'm not saying that it is impossible for any evidence to come to light that will cause his supporters to abandon him, just that that needs to happen before he is at risk.That is more the "Trump's supporters are cultists" position that seems to be popular on the forum. If they are correct, then his approval won't drop and I really don't see Trump suffering any significant legal consequence coming to him.

Maybe they have been holding back some shocking, cast iron evidence this whole time?

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Because it was more politically convenient for them to block it than to help the Democrats?

I'm not saying that it is impossible for any evidence to come to light that will cause his supporters to abandon him, just that that needs to happen before he is at risk.That is more the "Trump's supporters are cultists" position that seems to be popular on the forum. If they are correct, then his approval won't drop and I really don't see Trump suffering any significant legal consequence coming to him.

Maybe they have been holding back some shocking, cast iron evidence this whole time?

You miss their only point, orange man bad, its all they have, no plan for the future, just the omb vortex.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

You miss their only point, orange man bad, its all they have, no plan for the future, just the omb vortex.

You've shown that "orange man bad" is pretty much all you have. It may as well be your mantra. It's your knee-jerk response to any criticism of Trump. Ive already asked you to provide an actual logical argument in support of your claims in another thread, and you didn't respond further. You keep claiming that you aren't a Trump supporter and that you think he sucks, but any time anyone else gives a specific example of his suckage, you mockingly dismiss them with "orange man bad".

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

You've shown that "orange man bad" is pretty much all you have. It may as well be your mantra. It's your knee-jerk response to any criticism of Trump. Ive already asked you to provide an actual logical argument in support of your claims in another thread, and you didn't respond further. You keep claiming that you aren't a Trump supporter and that you think he sucks, but any time anyone else gives a specific example of his suckage, you mockingly dismiss them with "orange man bad".

Well, rockysmith76 consistently refers to Trump as “orange man”. Maybe that is an indication that he doesn’t really like the dude. But you are correct, he has very little to say other than that. And while he may not like Trump, he apparently likes criticism of Trump even less.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Steve

And while he may not like Trump, he apparently likes criticism of Trump even less.

I really want to understand what the concept of "I don't like Trump" means coming from people who defend him at every single argumentative chance.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I really want to understand what the concept of "I don't like Trump" means coming from people who defend him at every single argumentative chance.

And why the "other side" is somehow more concerning even with Trump at his worst.

If the half-Kenyan president behaved like Trump we already know what the reaction would be.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by whoanellie

I suspect you are correct. Pardoning Trump would be consistent with historical precedent (see Nixon, Richard M.) and with Biden's centrist, waiting-for-the-fever-to-break mindset. The selling-point will be that Biden wants to focus on the future and not the past 4 years.

If Biden were to pardon Trump, the Nazis wouldn't feel the need to crawl back under their rocks.

A better option would be for Trump and his entire entourage to depart for some non-extradition country. Which is fine with me - the Trumpists who can afford it can go with him, the rest can crawl back under their rocks.

As you may guess, I would really like the lot of them back under their rocks. I'm just willing to settle for having them leave. And take their rocks with them.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

That is more possible, but I think it's unlikely. Is the idea here that the IRS has been covering for his tax evasion and somehow that is going to come to light now? It could also be that he has been practicing tax avoidance, rather than tax evasion.

The most likely charge is obtaining millions of dollars of loans fraudulently from banks by overstating the value of his properties. Tax returns from the same period understating the values of his properties will show that these were deliberate acts.

It will be easy to frame this as common or garden mortgage fraud.

Money laundering would probably involve selling properties to well-connected Russians at way above the market price. Proving this was deliberate will be much harder.

Quote:

I really don't think this is likely.

I'm sure that the billing for the use of Trump's properties has been padded and that there will be fraud cases.

Quote:

It opens a political can of worms where one side prosecutes the other once they leave office. I really doubt they are going to want to do this.

The alternative is "the President (and his family and his friends) is above the law".

Hence I suspect a focus on financial crimes especially from before taking office, rather than official acts while in power - there won't be a prosecution of Trump for conspiring to deprive citizens of their right to vote, or for poor treatment of immigrants.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

Note the highlighted portion---Yet you seem to persist in the belief that the supporters must abandon him before any pretense of any prosecution of Trump begins.

That isn't what I said. The impeachment went ahead, it just wasn't ever going to go anywhere unless they convinced a good number of Trumps supporters to abandon him. Similar will with any other prosecution that is going to do more than slap him on the wrist.

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

I merely continue to note what I consider to be obvious: His support may erode during the course of said prosecution. These events need not be sequentially discrete. I am too young to remember the Nixon years, but it is my understanding that this is how things evolved in that circumstance.

Nixon's approval was at around 25% for 6 months before he stepped down. Through that time the public support for impeaching him climbed and climbed until close to a super majority were in favour. That was before the Supreme court ordered the tapes be released. Trump has survived Russiagate without his base giving up on, he has survived impeachment without his base giving up on him. It's not that I don't think that something that would have the impact of the Watergate tapes couldn't exist, it's just that if it did... wouldn't they have used it to try and impeach him by now?

Originally Posted by The J is for Jeenyus

At any rate, a lot of people riding on Trump's coattails seem quite eager to hide evidence against Trump in the impeachment (and other) case. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding what that says about their judgment of Trump's prosecutability.

It's a tired, worn out old subject... but if there was some terrible bit of evidence that would damn him in the witnesses the senate said "no" to, then maybe the house should have gone to the Supreme Court so that the witnesses were compelled to attend.... as happened when the Watergate tapes were released. In any case, not letting the Democrats choose the main story in the news cycle and then run it for as long as they wanted doesn't mean they thought it was ultimately going to prove anything.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Aber

The most likely charge is obtaining millions of dollars of loans fraudulently from banks by overstating the value of his properties. Tax returns from the same period understating the values of his properties will show that these were deliberate acts.

I don't think this is going to be a good thing to get him for. Watergate was a clear crime that everybody could immediately understand and see was a crime. A burglary. You then have Nixon on tape making it clear that he knew about the burglary and was trying to hush it up.

Originally Posted by Aber

It will be easy to frame this as common or garden mortgage fraud.

To what audience? A burglary has the advantage that it doesn't need framing. If Trumps approval is going to go down, you have to convince a bunch of people who are predisposed to think accusations against Trump are dishonestly framed and that the swamp are trying to get him.

Originally Posted by Aber

The alternative is "the President (and his family and his friends) is above the law".

Practically speaking that is all but the case anyway.