Criminal Charges Against Trump

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by No Other

I can't think of one politician that came out of Congress barely making ends meet. I don't like the idea of ANY politician making money due to being elected but we are stuck with it, all the Court did was codify it.

There is a world of difference between a politician making money based on name recognition from their time in office (e.g. from writing books, making paid speeches, etc.), and a politician using the office to directly enrich themselves (e.g. Trump having secret service agents rent rooms in his resorts while providing protection, foreign governments renting rooms in Trump hotels to curry favor.)

Quote:

People didn't seem to have any problem when Hillary (as Secretary of State) arranged for meetings with her and others when those who wanted to meet donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Irrelevant.

The Clinton Foundation was a charity (one that was actually pretty highly regarded), and the Clintons did not draw a salary from the organization. Regardless of how much someone donated, Bill or Hillary would not benefit financially from it. (And there has never been any evidence of any sort of 'pay for play', despite Republican attempts to make 'uranium-1' a thing.)

When Bill Clinton left office, the Clintons were not exactly uber-wealthy. They did build up their finances, but it was largely from book deals and speeches.

[Segnosaur]

Re: Supreme court ending 'emoluments' lawsuits...

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The courts don't want to make a ruling and say if it was constitutional or not. They really are lazy at a fundamental level and will look for any excuse to avoid doing their job.

The legal eagle youtube channel had a short segment where he discussed the emoluments case.

Basically the issue is that federal courts have a tradition of only ruling things that are a 'case in controversy'... (i.e. where they actually have power to do something.) The problem is, the lawsuits seemed to be about relief (i.e. stopping Trump from violating the emoluments clause in the future) rather than damages (i.e. demanding Trump pay back money he has already earned). Once Trump was no longer president, there was no need for 'relief'.

That will not prevent the Department o'Justice under Biden from launching a lawsuit in the future to try to force Trump to disgorge any profits from his hotels, should they decide to play hardball in the future.

[smartcooky]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...b-spy-new-book

I wonder if any charges could end up being brought from this. The article certainly goes a long way towards explaining much of his behaviour towards Putin and NATO.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...b-spy-new-book

I wonder if any charges could end up being brought from this. The article certainly goes a long way towards explaining much of his behaviour towards Putin and NATO.

The whole article smacks of a book advertisement more than anything else.

How, exactly, did Trump benefit Russia?
What international policies or actions, for instance, did Trump put in place to favour Russia?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

People will take note that the Supreme Court has no problem with a for-profit Presidency.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The courts don't want to make a ruling and say if it was constitutional or not. They really are lazy at a fundamental level and will look for any excuse to avoid doing their job.

Did either of you actually read the article, or did you just knee jerk? You are posting garbage on a supposed Skeptic Forum.

The Case that the Supremes threw out was Trump's challenge to allowing the case to go forward in the lower courts.

They were never asked to make a decision in the Emoluments Clause, they were asked, by Trump, to not allow the case in the lower courts to proceed, and that is what they have thrown out.

In normal circumstances that would allow the case against Trump to proceed, but since it had been dismissed in the lower courts (because it was only asking for the Courts to stop Trump from benefiting while President and now he's no longer President the Courts can't take action to stop him from doing something while President) that means that the entire case is ended.

The reason they dismissed Trump's case was that it's moot with the dismissal of the lower court case, they can't stop a case from proceeding when it has been dismissed.

This has nothing to do with them no wanting to make a decision, nor on their making a statement. It is entirely them saying, there is no point in going forward in deciding if the case in the lower court should proceed because that case has been dismissed, and our decision is no longer relevant.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by EHocking

The whole article smacks of a book advertisement more than anything else.

How, exactly, did Trump benefit Russia?
What international policies or actions, for instance, did Trump put in place to favour Russia?

You mean other than severely weakening N.A.T.O.and reducing the influence of the US in everything from International Trade to Climate Change allowing China and Russia to step into those roles?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Quote:

How, exactly, did Trump benefit Russia?
What international policies or actions, for instance, did Trump put in place to favour Russia?

You mean other than severely weakening N.A.T.O.and reducing the influence of the US in everything from International Trade to Climate Change allowing China and Russia to step into those roles?

Plus you also have:
- Trump providing American intelligence to the Russians
- Attempts to get Russia re-admitted to the G7 after they were expelled (An unsuccessful attempt, but it was still something favoring Russia)
- Withdrawing from the Open Skies treaty (which makes it more difficult to observe things like Russian troop movements
- Deflection of criticism of Russia over their interference in the U.S. election (as well as attempting to curtail sanctions that result from their interference)

Plus, when you make American politics look so crappy, it probably makes it easier for Putin to look good. "So what if I jail my opponents and poison dissidents... At least we don't look as embarrassing as the United States"

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You mean other than severely weakening N.A.T.O.

NATO suspended their relationship with Russia in 2014 as a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Two years before Trump’s presidency.
Subsequently in 2018, “NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ... welcomed the 2018 Russia–United States summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Helsinki, Finland”
Trump made some noises about leaving NATO and whined that the non-US NATO participants weren’t pulling their weight financially, but nothing came of it - just Trump hot air.

Quote:

. and reducing the influence of the US in everything from International Trade to Climate Change allowing China and Russia to step into those roles?

Trump busted a whole swathe of international trade relationships.
What is the evidence that it was at the behest of Putin or in order to benefit Russia?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Quote:

You mean other than severely weakening N.A.T.O.

Trump made some noises about leaving NATO and whined that the non-US NATO participants weren’t pulling their weight financially, but nothing came of it - just Trump hot air.

You kind of just proved his point...

By threatening to withdraw from Nato, Trump sent a clear message: You can't count on the U.S. to have your backs if there is trouble.

Quote:

Trump busted a whole swathe of international trade relationships.
What is the evidence that it was at the behest of Putin or in order to benefit Russia?

Countries make alliances with each other. Big countries will sometimes protect small countries militarily and/or provide aid, small countries may benefit the bigger countries by giving priority for natural resources, or for strategic support.

Trump screwing over the Kurds in the middle east means that various ethnic groups will be less likely to ally themselves with the U.S. in future middle eastern conflicts. This will mean that they will end up gravitating to Russia.

The reduction of foreign aid to places like Africa means that african nations will be more accepting of Chinese aid, with the result that China will be the one more likely to benefit if/when new natural resources are discovered.

ETA: Putin may not have explicitly told Trump "end foreign aid and screw over the Kurds", but by placing someone as incompetent as Trump in power meant that mistakes like that would be more likely

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You kind of just proved his point...

By threatening to withdraw from Nato, Trump sent a clear message: You can't count on the U.S. to have your backs if there is trouble.

It was hot air and bluster for the devoted.
Nothing came of it though. Like every other leader in the rest of the world, NATO’s leadership “managed” Trump blundering stupidity.

Quote:

Countries make alliances with each other. Big countries will sometimes protect small countries militarily and/or provide aid, small countries may benefit the bigger countries by giving priority for natural resources, or for strategic support.

Trump screwing over the Kurds in the middle east means that various ethnic groups will be less likely to ally themselves with the U.S. in future middle eastern conflicts. This will mean that they will end up gravitating to Russia.

The reduction of foreign aid to places like Africa means that african nations will be more accepting of Chinese aid, with the result that China will be the one more likely to benefit if/when new natural resources are discovered.

ETA: Putin may not have explicitly told Trump "end foreign aid and screw over the Kurds", but by placing someone as incompetent as Trump in power meant that mistakes like that would be more likely

Again, what is the evidence that Putin/Russia “placed their man” in the WH? There is none - but the conspiracy theory certainly sells books.

If Russia is so effective in getting their man into the WH, what happened last year?

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Again, what is the evidence that Putin/Russia “placed their man” in the WH? There is none - but the conspiracy theory certainly sells books.

I don't know if Trump was an "asset" in the sense used in spy circles. More like a useful idiot. Maybe both can be true. I'm not sure.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't know if Trump was an "asset" in the sense used in spy circles. More like a useful idiot. Maybe both can be true. I'm not sure.

I am more inclined towards this. I don't think the Russians put too much effort into cultivating him as an asset...he was more a very low hanging fruit (probably more the rotten one that has fallen to the ground) that the Russians found very easy to manipulate.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by No Other

I can't think of one politician that came out of Congress barely making ends meet. I don't like the idea of ANY politician making money due to being elected but we are stuck with it, all the Court did was codify it. People didn't seem to have any problem when Hillary (as Secretary of State) arranged for meetings with her and others when those who wanted to meet donated to the Clinton Foundation.

that has nothing to do with the issue at hand: Trump got sued for breaking the Emoluments Clause almost as soon as he took office, and the Courts let him drag out the case until it became moot.
It is textbook "Justice delayed is Justice denied".

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Did either of you actually read the article, or did you just knee jerk? You are posting garbage on a supposed Skeptic Forum.

The Case that the Supremes threw out was Trump's challenge to allowing the case to go forward in the lower courts.

They were never asked to make a decision in the Emoluments Clause, they were asked, by Trump, to not allow the case in the lower courts to proceed, and that is what they have thrown out.

In normal circumstances that would allow the case against Trump to proceed, but since it had been dismissed in the lower courts (because it was only asking for the Courts to stop Trump from benefiting while President and now he's no longer President the Courts can't take action to stop him from doing something while President) that means that the entire case is ended.

The reason they dismissed Trump's case was that it's moot with the dismissal of the lower court case, they can't stop a case from proceeding when it has been dismissed.

This has nothing to do with them no wanting to make a decision, nor on their making a statement. It is entirely them saying, there is no point in going forward in deciding if the case in the lower court should proceed because that case has been dismissed, and our decision is no longer relevant.

Disagree.

This was, from the start, a Constitutional Issue, one that needed clarification, but the SC made sure that they didn't do anything timely about it.
By letting the clock run out, the SC all but blessed Trump's grift.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by EHocking

The whole article smacks of a book advertisement more than anything else.

How, exactly, did Trump benefit Russia?
What international policies or actions, for instance, did Trump put in place to favour Russia?

Seriously, have you simply not been watching for the last four years? Many of the things he as done read like some kind of wish-list for Putin

1. Alienating America's NATO allies
2. Removal of sanctions on Russian oligarchs (Putin's buddies)
3. Pulling troops out of the middle east (giving Russia a free hand)
4. Blowing the cover of a CIA operative inside the Kremlin
5. Releasing classified photographs and information useful to the Russians
6. Turning a blind eye to Russian cyber attacks
7. Discrediting American Democratic institutions
8. Making America a dysfunctional and divided society
9. Not holding Russia accountable for the bounties on US soldiers in the middle east

Read about it. It doesn't paint a pretty picture

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6ed_story.html

[Norman Alexander]

Trump only needed to to one job to be a Russian asset: To create turmoil and instability in the USA such that it was lowered in the estimation of the rest of the world. In that way Russia was positioned to be considered (relatively) the more stable and mature superpower in the global scheme of things.

And Donny did a FANTASTIC job at exactly that, wiping out any prestige the USA may have had, creating a climate of continuous internal unrest and disruption, cultivation of foreign warlords rather than dignitaries, isolation from former allies, culminating in an insurrection and a second impeachment. He not only dropped the USA in the cesspit internationally, he held its head under and then dropped in some grenades. You do understand that the USA was virtually a global pariah under Trump? Biden has a LOOOOOONG way to go to recover that prestige.

Meanwhile, the Russian government has been toasting themselves silly with champagne over the fact that such a stupid Manchurian candidate paid off so well for them so quickly. It was like an unexpected lottery win for them.

[dirtywick]

russia put bounties on US troops and he didn't say a word

[Segnosaur]

Re: Emoluments court case...

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Disagree.

This was, from the start, a Constitutional Issue, one that needed clarification, but the SC made sure that they didn't do anything timely about it.
By letting the clock run out, the SC all but blessed Trump's grift.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the supreme court for this.

The U.S. court system (well, probably every court system in democratic countries) runs slowly... multiple layers (district courts, appeal courts, supreme court), and each court level may add its own delays (hearings have to be scheduled, judges may need time to reach an agreement). And to allow an average defendant to present their best case, they may give extra time for lawyers to prepare (since the type of arguments presented may change at each level).

The thing that sets this case apart from others is the fact that it was time-limited... Trump had a 4 year term, and because the way the case was brought forward, it had to be decided in that term.

I remember listening to a commentator (it was a while ago, but I believe he was a former federal prosecutor) that suggested certain reforms... that congress could pass a law to create special courts specifically to handle cases involving the president, where each layer of 'appeals' would be time limited, allowing things to be fast-tracked.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Quote:

By threatening to withdraw from Nato, Trump sent a clear message: You can't count on the U.S. to have your backs if there is trouble.

It was hot air and bluster for the devoted.
Nothing came of it though. Like every other leader in the rest of the world, NATO’s leadership “managed” Trump blundering stupidity.

Although Trump did not withdraw the U.S. from NATO, it does not mean that the alliance was not weakened. Again, the message that other nations can no longer trust the U.S. to act in their interest is a powerful one.

Then you also have things like Trump's actions to withdraw troops from Germany (which, you know, is a NATO country)...

From: Foreign Policy
...the United States would pull nearly 12,000 troops out of Germany
...
Behind the scenes, however, the decision has frustrated some U.S. and European officials who see the move as harmful to U.S. interests in Europe and fear it will undercut NATO’s activities aimed at deterring Russia from the alliance’s eastern flank. They also said the decision was made in haste, without a proper interagency review, and without sufficient consultations with European allies....

Quote:

Again, what is the evidence that Putin/Russia “placed their man” in the WH?

We know that Russia interfered in the 2016 election (through social media campaigns and hacking attempts). Even the the report from the republican-controlled senate admitted as such. We also know there were some interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian assets (such as Manafort passing on polling information).

We also have evidence that, prior to Trump's entry into the Republican primaries, there were some interactions between Trump and Russian actors. (For example, Trump's sale of properties to Russian oligarchs at above market rates might be a sign of money laundering. And it is thought that some of Trump's bank loans had to be secured by Russian financiers.) Admittedly there is a lot that we don't know, but there was SOME interaction going on.

Now, whether Russia was specifically grooming Trump long-term to be a presidential candidate us unknown; a more likely scenario is that Trump was a useful pawn in earlier (possibly criminal) activities, and kind of just "fell into" the role of a Russian presidential stooge.

Quote:

If Russia is so effective in getting their man into the WH, what happened last year?

Russia helped Trump in 2016... all evidence points to that fact.

However, Russia is not some omnipotent power that can unilaterally affect the course of American politics. They can assist in an attempt to tilt things in their favor in a close race (as it was in 2016), but even they cannot overcome a huge shortfall (as Trump had in 2020).

For Russia, the important thing was not necessarily whether Trump won or lost, but to sow discord into the American political system. Having a useful stooge like Trump win is just icing on the cake.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Judge orders the Trump Organisation to turn over even more documents to NY investigators, including communications with the firm's lawyers

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Judge orders the Trump Organisation to turn over even more documents to NY investigators, including communications with the firm's lawyers

As usual, Trump will task his attorneys with delaying the release as long as possible. Delay, delay, delay. And then asks the simple question: “But what happens if I just refuse?”

What’s aggravating is they’ve found the soft underbelly of our justice system, and for those with means it works depressingly well.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

As usual, Trump will task his attorneys with delaying the release as long as possible. Delay, delay, delay. And then asks the simple question: “But what happens if I just refuse?”



What’s aggravating is they’ve found the soft underbelly of our justice system, and for those with means it works depressingly well.

They were effective in delaying before because, as president, Trump had a certain amount of influence... Court cases may have had to consider constitution issues as well as straight legal issues, there were questions about indicting a sitting president.

As a private citizen much of that goes away. It wouldn't even suprise me if the supreme Court refuses to deal with any of his potential appeals. He could still delay a bit, bit not as much as before.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

They were effective in delaying before because, as president, Trump had a certain amount of influence...

Undeniably true.

But it’s always been his pattern: delay paying people, delay court appearances and then delay via endless
appeals, delay paying loans, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.

But, yes, now he may just find out that eventually delaying tactics run out - that contempt of court is an actual crime with actual consequences. But if the past is prologue, I still wouldn’t hold by breath.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

As usual, Trump will task his attorneys with delaying the release as long as possible. Delay, delay, delay. And then asks the simple question: “But what happens if I just refuse?”

What’s aggravating is they’ve found the soft underbelly of our justice system, and for those with means it works depressingly well.

I know what would happen if Joe Public was to refuse a court order to turn over documents.

1. Joe would be charged with Obstruction of Justice.

2. Joe would be ruled in contempt of court, and be jailed. He would have to remain there until he furnished authorities with the demanded documents.

I see no reason why Trump should not be treated the same way.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Scottish parliament is holding a vote over whether to investigate Trump's properties there and whether they have been used for money laundering

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Undeniably true.

But it’s always been his pattern: delay paying people, delay court appearances and then delay via endless
appeals, delay paying loans, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.

But, yes, now he may just find out that eventually delaying tactics run out - that contempt of court is an actual crime with actual consequences. But if the past is prologue, I still wouldn’t hold by breath.

I think we already have a pissed-off DA in New York. Do we need something else besides an almost-equally-pissed-off judge? If Trump is getting too toxic (and too unreliable regarding payments) for competent lawyers, we may actually get that soon.

I suppose there may have been a time when the fame for representing Donald Trump trumped the eventual payment problems, but that time is now over.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Scottish parliament is holding a vote over whether to investigate Trump's properties there and whether they have been used for money laundering

That is one complicated article. i guess you really have to understand Scottish politics to understand.

Could we have an update if/when something happens?

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Scottish parliament is holding a vote over whether to investigate Trump's properties there and whether they have been used for money laundering

Quote:

That is one complicated article. i guess you really have to understand Scottish politics to understand.

Could we have an update if/when something happens?

Looks like nothing will be coming of it...

From: CTV News
The Scottish parliament on Wednesday rejected a call for the government to investigate how Donald Trump funded his purchase of two golf courses in Scotland...Humza Yousaf, the Scottish justice minister, said Donald Trump was a "deplorable individual" but it was not for politicians to instigate such investigations.

So doesn't necessarily mean Trump is innocent, but that there will have to be other mechanisms used to investigate potential fraud.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Scottish parliament is holding a vote over whether to investigate Trump's properties there and whether they have been used for money laundering

Interesting. How ironic if it's Scotland that brings a case against Trump before the US that's successful seeing how his mother was from there.

ETA: Darn. Should have read to the end before posting.

[Segnosaur]

More potential criminal activity (although this one didn't seem to go anywhere...)

From: Business Insider
Parler and the Trump Organization, negotiating on behalf of then-President Donald Trump, held talks that would have given Trump's company a major stake in Parler in exchange for the president making it his go-to social media platform...talks between Parler and the Trump Organization began last summer and were revisted after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden, but ultimately failed-and it wasn't clear how involved Trump was in the negotiations....a deal with Parler would have violated anti-bribery laws because Trump would have received something of value in exchange for Parler getting a say over where Trump made his official statements.

Granted, this didn't go anywhere. But, the fact that they would have even considered should be a problem. (But then, with Trump, it would be just one more grift on a pile of cons.)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Looks like nothing will be coming of it...

From: CTV News
The Scottish parliament on Wednesday rejected a call for the government to investigate how Donald Trump funded his purchase of two golf courses in Scotland...Humza Yousaf, the Scottish justice minister, said Donald Trump was a "deplorable individual" but it was not for politicians to instigate such investigations.

So doesn't necessarily mean Trump is innocent, but that there will have to be other mechanisms used to investigate potential fraud.

Still, it could be a not-so-subtle hint to the Procurator Fiscal that he should start having a close look at Trump's affairs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How convenient, Trump can throw his inaugural committee under the bus for over-paying into Trump's properties, and that includes his kids.

Forbes: D.C. Attorney General Asks To Interview Donald Trump Jr. About 2017 Inauguration

Quote:

Attorney General Karl Racine is suing both the Trump Organization and the committee that planned President Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration, claiming the committee violated nonprofit rules by working to enrich the president’s business. Racine’s initial lawsuit filed last year claims the committee spent $1 million on ballroom space in the Trumps’ D.C. hotel, which he said is well above the market rate. On Monday, the A.G.’s office also alleged the committee paid a $49,000 bill that should’ve been paid by the Trump Organization. That bill — which was issued by a different D.C. hotel — was invoiced to Donald Trump Jr.’s assistant at the company, the lawsuit said, though it doesn’t make any allegations about the president’s son. ...

After Ivanka Trump sat for her hours-long deposition last month, she called the lawsuit politically motivated and tweeted out an email appearing to be from December 2016 in which she asked the hotel to charge a “fair market rate.”

Why would Ivanka need to send such an email if not to cover her ass? Don't these hotels have standard rates for ballroom rentals?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Interesting. How ironic if it's Scotland that brings a case against Trump before the US that's successful seeing how his mother was from there.

ETA: Darn. Should have read to the end before posting.

The real irony is how corrupt the Scottish Parliament is.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The Clinton Foundation was a charity (one that was actually pretty highly regarded)...

It still is. Their foundation hasn't been dissolved by the state AG.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by EHocking

It was hot air and bluster for the devoted.
Nothing came of it though. Like every other leader in the rest of the world, NATO’s leadership “managed” Trump blundering stupidity.
Again, what is the evidence that Putin/Russia “placed their man” in the WH? There is none - but the conspiracy theory certainly sells books.

If Russia is so effective in getting their man into the WH, what happened last year?

Placed their man?
No.
Preferred Trump to Clinton by a wide, wide margin?
Yes.
Played him like a violin?
Yes.



The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence all agreed that there was Russian interference. A few other US intelligence agencies. President Trump said, “I asked Putin if he was behind the interference and I looked him in the eye. He said no and I believe him.” Before 2016, could anyone even imagine a case in which a more than a half dozen US intelligence agencies all came to the same conclusion but the president decided to adopt the exact opposite conclusion based on the word of the president of Russian?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by timhau

It still is. Their foundation hasn't been dissolved by the state AG.

So that’s how deep the scam goes?

/s

[Paul2]

I bow to no one in my disgust for Trump, and he must be prosecuted, but there will be a price to pay. Before a POTUS had ever been prosecuted, there was no frivolous prosecutions of a POTUS. After the first POTUS has been prosecuted, frivolous prosecutions as payback from political parties will be possible, and maybe likely.

Eyes open.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I bow to no one in my disgust for Trump, and he must be prosecuted, but there will be a price to pay. Before a POTUS had ever been prosecuted, there was no frivolous prosecutions of a POTUS. After the first POTUS has been prosecuted, frivolous prosecutions as payback from political parties will be possible, and maybe likely.

Eyes open.

As long as the DoJ remains politically neutral I don't see that happening. There have been Governors who have been criminally prosecuted before, and we don't see it as being open season on them. There have also been civil suits against Presidents, and again, we don't see them happening to every President as revenge for the previous one.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

As long as the DoJ remains politically neutral I don't see that happening. There have been Governors who have been criminally prosecuted before, and we don't see it as being open season on them. There have also been civil suits against Presidents, and again, we don't see them happening to every President as revenge for the previous one.

We saw a political DoJ in the last admin. My fingers are crossed.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Paul2

We saw a political DoJ in the last admin. My fingers are crossed.

Again, remember that the nakedly partisan Bill Barr urged sedition charges against Black Lives Matter (to date, known to be responsible for exactly 0 planned violent attacks), and pushed to treat Antifa as a terrorist organization (when it was not an organization at all) - while continuing Jim Crow Sessions' open refusal to investigate police bias. If anything, his biases allowed violent white supremacist gangs like the Proud Boys to flourish, contributing to the actual insurrection on Jan 6th.