[Merged] Criminal Charges Against Trump/Trump indicted - Page 63

Skeptic Ginger · 27th March 2023, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

....Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War. ...

Pretty sure you are overestimating the size of the Trump cult, especially the subset that would actually attack something like the Capitol.

Maybe some terrorism like McVeigh and his fertilizer bomb, but a civil war? No.

quadraginta · 27th March 2023, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

If Trump is charged over the Stormy Daniels affair there will obviously be lots of polls regarding what people think about the charges.

We will see what our society says, and whether or not I am right. If I am wrong, great!

Polls, for whatever they are worth, would be as divided as the American public is, so those wouldn't establish much.

And it is not clear to me how polls would even be relevant. We have laws which proscribe proper behavior. (At least we did.

) The only poll which matters is the polling of a jury, and even that has its flaws, as a multitude of unpunished race crimes has shown.

quadraginta · 27th March 2023, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Falsified business records is not the same as perjury. They weren't submitted under oath.

Tax records are. And there are others, I'm sure.

quadraginta · 27th March 2023, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

No, what I am saying is that we should be delicate before charging a former President with a crime, especially following such a crazy election and with many insane extremists thinking the former POTUS is still POTUS and is being persecuted.

In normal times, I think ex-Presidents are deserving of a little leeway with regards to prosecutions.

Why?

Quote:

Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War.

Are you suggesting that we should allow ourselves to be cowed by thugs and hooligans and ignore criminal behavior?

Quote:

But like I said, I have nothing against charging Trump with major crimes, if the evidence is there.

Again, what is the threshold for a "major" crime? In this instance there does not seem to be a lack of evidence.

Is is paying bribe money with the express intent of influencing a national election not "major"?

Congress apparently thought so. I doubt they passed the laws they did because it was a slow day at the Capitol Building and they just needed something to do.

Not least because such laws are among the exceeding rare ones which impact them specifically as well as their backers.

The same holds true for state governments, who seem largely in agreement with Federal laws on this subject.

Segnosaur · 27th March 2023, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Falsified business records is not the same as perjury. They weren't submitted under oath.

First of all, I never claimed falsified records were "the same" as perjury. I said it was related to perjury. There is still a requirement for the information to be accurate, and if its used in filing taxes, you usually have to sign something that says "this is accurate".

In other words its not like you're telling some little white lie to someone who probably doesn't care and has no legal remedy to you lying to them.

Secondly, of ALL the things I debunked in your post (your "there are violent crimes" MAGAchud talking point, the "prosecutorial discression" argument, etc.) that was the ONLY think you could talk about?

eerok · 27th March 2023, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

No, what I am saying is that we should be delicate before charging a former President with a crime, especially following such a crazy election and with many insane extremists thinking the former POTUS is still POTUS and is being persecuted.

In normal times, I think ex-Presidents are deserving of a little leeway with regards to prosecutions.

In normal times, American ex-presidents aren't deranged scofflaws who attempted to seize control of the government.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War.

After J6, his people know he doesn't have their back, so I don't think you'll see much action from them. Also I think that backing off on indicting Trump would be the worst choice possible. Then he'd really believe he's invincible, and so would everyone else.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

But like I said, I have nothing against charging Trump with major crimes, if the evidence is there.

Meh. I'd also like to see him charged with stealing those gifts from the White House.

Stacyhs · 27th March 2023, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Why?

Are you suggesting that we should allow ourselves to be cowed by thugs and hooligans and ignore criminal behavior?

Again, what is the threshold for a "major" crime? In this instance there does not seem to be a lack of evidence.

Is is paying bribe money with the express intent of influencing a national election not "major"?

Congress apparently thought so. I doubt they passed the laws they did because it was a slow day at the Capitol Building and they just needed something to do.

Not least because such laws are among the exceeding rare ones which impact them specifically as well as their backers.

The same holds true for state governments, who seem largely in agreement with Federal laws on this subject.

I agree with this.

Stacyhs · 27th March 2023, 06:40 PM

I repeat: the most important thing is to establish is that NO ONE is above the law and most certainly not the President of the United States.

arthwollipot · 27th March 2023, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I repeat: the most important thing is to establish is that NO ONE is above the law and most certainly not the President of the United States.

And this is why I think it's critically important that they take all the time they need to make sure everything is meticulously documented, and all the relevant details put on the record. When setting a precedent as important as this, you don't want to leave any loopholes.

autumn1971 · 27th March 2023, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Falsified business records is not the same as perjury. They weren't submitted under oath.

Pretty sure the line before the signature indicates that knowingly submitting false claims is, in fact, perjury.

newyorkguy · 27th March 2023, 07:19 PM

Yes, you are about to enter ~~The Twilight Zone~~ the America of today.

8enotto · 27th March 2023, 07:40 PM

Trump has lackeys sign all his business papers. It's just a matter of time he says he had no input nor knowledge of what lifelong friends are doing.
He will throw the lot in front of his bus to save his own diapered butt.

arthwollipot · 27th March 2023, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by 8enotto

Trump has lackeys sign all his business papers.

Except for those he signs himself, with a sharpie.

gnome · 27th March 2023, 08:41 PM

The way I see it, campaign finance violation isn't a "paperwork crime". The crime is buying an election. The paperwork is just how you're caught.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Aridas · 27th March 2023, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War.

It may be worth making a note here that inaction where action is deserved just ends up being encouragement to go further and further, which makes Civil War more and more likely. That we're even in this position is likely the result of the inaction of many.

Parsman · 28th March 2023, 04:44 AM

I shoplifted a chocolate bar. The shop owner wants to press charges, but 20 of my friends have got together and threatened to beat up the shop owner and vandalise the whole shopping street if the case goes ahead, so it should be dropped for the sake of peace? That seems to be what is being argued here, if on a somewhat larger scale.

Delvo · 28th March 2023, 06:02 AM

Either that, or chocolate thieves are just a special separate group of entities slightly above human with a cosmic right to as much chocolate as they could ever want.

8enotto · 28th March 2023, 06:20 AM

There is room enough for the future terrorists and insurrection participants with the J6 morons. None of which will ever be able to vote again.
They are already investigating one bomb threat.

bruto · 28th March 2023, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Parsman

I shoplifted a chocolate bar. The shop owner wants to press charges, but 20 of my friends have got together and threatened to beat up the shop owner and vandalise the whole shopping street if the case goes ahead, so it should be dropped for the sake of peace? That seems to be what is being argued here, if on a somewhat larger scale.

That's half of it, I think. The other half seems to be that you shouldn't be charged for that because you're really a bank robber.

Hercules56 · 28th March 2023, 01:05 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/

"In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law.

Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement"

thoughts?

wareyin · 28th March 2023, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/

"In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law.

Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement"

thoughts?

I think the National Review is a far-right media organization, and as such are prone to twisting things to favor Republicans in general and Trump in particular.

I think that's another far right news source you're relying on, while claiming to stick with Yahoo News and CNN.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th March 2023, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/

"In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law.

Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement"

thoughts?

Yeah that's that dishonest POV where some legislators are trying to interfere with Bragg no matter how many times these legislators hear the FACT the charge Bragg is investigating is lying on tax forms when Trump filed taxes in NY.

CNN's Jake Tapper was one of the talking heads who kept telling James Comer that and Comer did the usual stunt of ignoring the facts and going right back to his talking point.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...comer-full.cnn

Repeat a lie often enough...

Stacyhs · 28th March 2023, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah that's that dishonest POV where some legislators are trying to interfere with Bragg no matter how many times these legislators hear the FACT the charge Bragg is investigating is lying on tax forms when Trump filed taxes in NY.

CNN's Jake Tapper was one of the talking heads who kept telling James Comer that and Comer did the usual stunt of ignoring the facts and going right back to his talking point.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...comer-full.cnn

Repeat a lie often enough...

Yep...when Tapper said Bragg was investigating STATE crimes, after a few hmms and haws, Comer immediately deflects to the standard GOP talking points about crime:

Quote:

"Even at that, look, let's just be honest here. This is about politics, this a a presidential candidate. When you look at what we believe the role of the Manhattan DA should be is to fight crime. That's one of the biggest issues we saw in the midterm elections last November. Voters overwhelmingly rejected many Democrat candidates because of the crime issue. We have a crime issue in many of our cities and we're trying to do something about that in the House of Representatives. And one of the reasons we believe we have high crime rates in many parts of America is because we have prosecutors soft on crime."

He goes on to talk about tax dollars being better spent on prosecution local criminals.

According to Comer, the crime Trump committed just isn't as important as the local crimes the DA should be prosecuting. When Comer said "Look, let's just be honest here," I fully expected him to explode into flames.

dudalb · 28th March 2023, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/

"In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law.

Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement"

thoughts?

Natonal review contiues it;s policy of tsk tsk ing at Trump's conduct, but coming around to supporting and defending him in the end.

Carlotta · 28th March 2023, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yep...when Tapper said Bragg was investigating STATE crimes, after a few hmms and haws, Comer immediately deflects to the standard GOP talking points about crime:

He goes on to talk about tax dollars being better spent on prosecution local criminals.

According to Comer, the crime Trump committed just isn't as important as the local crimes the DA should be prosecuting. When Comer said "Look, let's just be honest here," I fully expected him to explode into flames.

Funny, what I expected each time Comer started with "look" was for the next word to be "squirrel!"

Segnosaur · 28th March 2023, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/

"In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws."

Ummm... no he wouldn't. He will likely be prosecuting a state level law of falsifying financial records and/or income tax evasion. (There may be a reference to the federal campaign laws as a REASON Trump falsified records, but that won't be the crime Bragg is prosecuting.)

If an article gets such a basic fact wrong, you can probably assume they don't know what they are talking about.

Quote:

In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution.

Another questionable argument by an article that was already on shakey ground.

The DoJ has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. And even if the DoJ was willing to indict a sitting president, given the fact that the DoJ was headed by a Trump sycophant any rejection of the charge likely had more to do with the political leanings of the Attorney General than on the merits of the case.

Stacyhs · 28th March 2023, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Carlotta

Funny, what I expected each time Comer started with "look" was for the next word to be "squirrel!"

That was the intended effect!

newyorkguy · 28th March 2023, 05:52 PM

I noted how many times Comer said, "This is a presidential candidate," as though the edict not to indict a president while he is in office should now be extended to candidates for president. As ABC News quoted from the CNN interview:

Quote:

Pushed by CNN anchor Jake Tapper, who said Bragg is investigating potential violations of state and not federal crimes, Comer said, "This is about politics. This is a presidential candidate." ABC News link

It feels like Comer is merely adopting trump's newest line of attack:

Regnad Kcin · 28th March 2023, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I noted how many times Comer said, "This is a presidential candidate," as though the edict not to indict a president while he is in office should now be extended to candidates for president. As ABC News quoted from the CNN interview:

It feels like Comer is merely adopting trump's newest line of attack:

Oh, it was very clear from the get go, never mind he keeps bleating about it, Trump declared last year with at least the idea if not the belief if not the confidence he can bullpoop his base that being a candidate would shield him from the law.

It's like kids chasing each other around the house. They can evade capture if they touch the potted palm and yell, "Safe!"

Stacyhs · 28th March 2023, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I noted how many times Comer said, "This is a presidential candidate," as though the edict not to indict a president while he is in office should now be extended to candidates for president. As ABC News quoted from the CNN interview:

It feels like Comer is merely adopting trump's newest line of attack:

Not just Comer. It's the 'go to' for all of them. They think it's the new kevlar.

Norman Alexander · 28th March 2023, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Not just Comer. It's the 'go to' for all of them. They think it's the new kevlar.

They WHAT??!

shemp · 29th March 2023, 06:34 AM

Some brainless MAGA ******* pulled a knife on a couple and their children out the courthouse in Manhattan.

MAGA Diehard Waves Knife at Family Outside NYC Courthouse: Officials

Quote:

A Trump supporter was arrested outside the Manhattan criminal courthouse on Tuesday after she pulled a knife out and threatened a woman who had small children with her, officials said. The 39-year-old protester was bearing a sign that read “I STAND WITH TRUMP DO YOU?” when she and two pedestrians passing by got into a heated verbal exchange, the exact nature of which was not immediately clear. Three witnesses told Politico that the passersby were a man and a woman with two children in strollers. As the argument escalated, the protester yanked a knife from her hip and began waving it at the group, a court spokesperson said. Court officers interceded, guns drawn, and ordered the protester to drop the knife, which she did. She was then taken into custody without incident. The incident comes as New York City braces for a looming indictment of the former president in a hush-money case, with a grand jury vote on the matter reportedly not expected until next week at the earliest.

Segnosaur · 29th March 2023, 01:03 PM

This is really going to frustrate a lot of people.

From: ABC News
The Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money paid on Donald Trump’s behalf is scheduled to consider other matters next week before taking a previously scheduled two-week hiatus...That means a vote on whether or not to indict the former president likely wouldn't come until late April at the earliest.

I can appreciate that they would want to make sure they take the time to build a solid case. But given the way Bragg torpedoed the potential criminal fraud case against Trump, its probably natural to worry he might be getting cold feet over this case as well.

Skeptic Ginger · 29th March 2023, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Carlotta

Funny, what I expected each time Comer started with "look" was for the next word to be "squirrel!"

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

... When Comer said "Look, let's just be honest here," I fully expected him to explode into flames.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

...
If an article gets such a basic fact wrong, you can probably assume they don't know what they are talking about....

Pretty sure they know exactly what they are doing.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

This is really going to frustrate a lot of people.

From: ABC News
The Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money paid on Donald Trump’s behalf is scheduled to consider other matters next week before taking a previously scheduled two-week hiatus...That means a vote on whether or not to indict the former president likely wouldn't come until late April at the earliest.

I can appreciate that they would want to make sure they take the time to build a solid case. But given the way Bragg torpedoed the potential criminal fraud case against Trump, its probably natural to worry he might be getting cold feet over this case as well.

Might be they are coordinating, Georgia and Garland. This is just speculating but it is just possible they don't want to lead with the weaker prosecution. If Trump were to win that might do a wee bit of damage to the next 2 prosecutions. And Trump might stall and stall in NY then say he can't appear in Georgia or DC because he's tied up in court or his attorney is.

We should also consider it was the Grifter in Orange who said the NY indictment was going to happen last week. Bragg never said that.

Hercules56 · 30th March 2023, 07:03 AM

Looks like Bragg has decided his low-level charges are just not fit this level of criminal, and we should wait for more serious charges to hopefully appear from the feds or Georgia.

Mike! · 30th March 2023, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Looks like Bragg has decided his low-level charges are just not fit this level of criminal, and we should wait for more serious charges to hopefully appear from the feds or Georgia.

Is this just an assumption or do you have a link to back this 'looks like' up?

Hercules56 · 30th March 2023, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mike!

Is this just an assumption or do you have a link to back this 'looks like' up?

I guess it's possible he will decide to press charges in 2 months.

MRC_Hans · 30th March 2023, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I guess it's possible he will decide to press charges in 2 months.

Or two weeks.

Hans

Hercules56 · 30th March 2023, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Or two weeks.

Hans

Nope, they are on break through the end of April.

Segnosaur · 30th March 2023, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Quote:

Or two weeks.

Nope, they are on break through the end of April.

I think you missed the joke....

27th March 2023, 03:33 PM	#2482
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,850	Originally Posted by Hercules56 If Trump is charged over the Stormy Daniels affair there will obviously be lots of polls regarding what people think about the charges. We will see what our society says, and whether or not I am right. If I am wrong, great! Polls, for whatever they are worth, would be as divided as the American public is, so those wouldn't establish much. And it is not clear to me how polls would even be relevant. We have laws which proscribe proper behavior. (At least we did. ) The only poll which matters is the polling of a jury, and even that has its flaws, as a multitude of unpunished race crimes has shown.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

27th March 2023, 03:36 PM	#2483
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,850	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Falsified business records is not the same as perjury. They weren't submitted under oath. Tax records are. And there are others, I'm sure.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

27th March 2023, 03:47 PM	#2484
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,850	Originally Posted by Hercules56 No, what I am saying is that we should be delicate before charging a former President with a crime, especially following such a crazy election and with many insane extremists thinking the former POTUS is still POTUS and is being persecuted. In normal times, I think ex-Presidents are deserving of a little leeway with regards to prosecutions. Why? Quote: Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War. Are you suggesting that we should allow ourselves to be cowed by thugs and hooligans and ignore criminal behavior? Quote: But like I said, I have nothing against charging Trump with major crimes, if the evidence is there. Again, what is the threshold for a "major" crime? In this instance there does not seem to be a lack of evidence. Is is paying bribe money with the express intent of influencing a national election not "major"? Congress apparently thought so. I doubt they passed the laws they did because it was a slow day at the Capitol Building and they just needed something to do. Not least because such laws are among the exceeding rare ones which impact them specifically as well as their backers. The same holds true for state governments, who seem largely in agreement with Federal laws on this subject.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." Last edited by quadraginta; 27th March 2023 at 03:49 PM.

27th March 2023, 03:53 PM	#2485
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 19,893	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Falsified business records is not the same as perjury. They weren't submitted under oath. First of all, I never claimed falsified records were "the same" as perjury. I said it was related to perjury. There is still a requirement for the information to be accurate, and if its used in filing taxes, you usually have to sign something that says "this is accurate". In other words its not like you're telling some little white lie to someone who probably doesn't care and has no legal remedy to you lying to them. Secondly, of ALL the things I debunked in your post (your "there are violent crimes" MAGAchud talking point, the "prosecutorial discression" argument, etc.) that was the ONLY think you could talk about?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

27th March 2023, 05:52 PM	#2486
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,441	Originally Posted by Hercules56 No, what I am saying is that we should be delicate before charging a former President with a crime, especially following such a crazy election and with many insane extremists thinking the former POTUS is still POTUS and is being persecuted. In normal times, I think ex-Presidents are deserving of a little leeway with regards to prosecutions. In normal times, American ex-presidents aren't deranged scofflaws who attempted to seize control of the government. Originally Posted by Hercules56 Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War. After J6, his people know he doesn't have their back, so I don't think you'll see much action from them. Also I think that backing off on indicting Trump would be the worst choice possible. Then he'd really believe he's invincible, and so would everyone else. Originally Posted by Hercules56 But like I said, I have nothing against charging Trump with major crimes, if the evidence is there. Meh. I'd also like to see him charged with stealing those gifts from the White House.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde Last edited by eerok; 27th March 2023 at 05:55 PM.

27th March 2023, 03:32 PM	#2481
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93,921	Originally Posted by Hercules56 ....Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War. ... Pretty sure you are overestimating the size of the Trump cult, especially the subset that would actually attack something like the Capitol. Maybe some terrorism like McVeigh and his fertilizer bomb, but a civil war? No.

27th March 2023, 06:36 PM	#2487
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,300	Originally Posted by quadraginta Why? Are you suggesting that we should allow ourselves to be cowed by thugs and hooligans and ignore criminal behavior? Again, what is the threshold for a "major" crime? In this instance there does not seem to be a lack of evidence. Is is paying bribe money with the express intent of influencing a national election not "major"? Congress apparently thought so. I doubt they passed the laws they did because it was a slow day at the Capitol Building and they just needed something to do. Not least because such laws are among the exceeding rare ones which impact them specifically as well as their backers. The same holds true for state governments, who seem largely in agreement with Federal laws on this subject. I agree with this.

27th March 2023, 06:40 PM	#2488
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,300	I repeat: the most important thing is to establish is that NO ONE is above the law and most certainly not the President of the United States.

27th March 2023, 06:43 PM	#2489
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 82,019	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I repeat: the most important thing is to establish is that NO ONE is above the law and most certainly not the President of the United States. And this is why I think it's critically important that they take all the time they need to make sure everything is meticulously documented, and all the relevant details put on the record. When setting a precedent as important as this, you don't want to leave any loopholes.
	__________________ Слава Україні! Героям Слава! 20220224 - 20230224

27th March 2023, 07:10 PM	#2490
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,192	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Falsified business records is not the same as perjury. They weren't submitted under oath. Pretty sure the line before the signature indicates that knowingly submitting false claims is, in fact, perjury.
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,192	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

27th March 2023, 07:19 PM	#2491
newyorkguy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: NY Posts: 13,072	Yes, you are about to enter ~~The Twilight Zone~~ the America of today.

27th March 2023, 07:40 PM	#2492
8enotto Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Mexico Posts: 2,869	Trump has lackeys sign all his business papers. It's just a matter of time he says he had no input nor knowledge of what lifelong friends are doing. He will throw the lot in front of his bus to save his own diapered butt.

27th March 2023, 07:53 PM	#2493
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 82,019	Originally Posted by 8enotto Trump has lackeys sign all his business papers. Except for those he signs himself, with a sharpie.
	__________________ Слава Україні! Героям Слава! 20220224 - 20230224

27th March 2023, 08:41 PM	#2494
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,743	The way I see it, campaign finance violation isn't a "paperwork crime". The crime is buying an election. The paperwork is just how you're caught. Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
	__________________

27th March 2023, 09:19 PM	#2495
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 9,943	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Why am I saying all this? I want to prevent a Civil War. It may be worth making a note here that inaction where action is deserved just ends up being encouragement to go further and further, which makes Civil War more and more likely. That we're even in this position is likely the result of the inaction of many.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

28th March 2023, 04:44 AM	#2496
Parsman Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bonnie Scotland Posts: 947	I shoplifted a chocolate bar. The shop owner wants to press charges, but 20 of my friends have got together and threatened to beat up the shop owner and vandalise the whole shopping street if the case goes ahead, so it should be dropped for the sake of peace? That seems to be what is being argued here, if on a somewhat larger scale.
	__________________ I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.

28th March 2023, 06:02 AM	#2497
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 11,096	Either that, or chocolate thieves are just a special separate group of entities slightly above human with a cosmic right to as much chocolate as they could ever want.

28th March 2023, 06:20 AM	#2498
8enotto Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Mexico Posts: 2,869	There is room enough for the future terrorists and insurrection participants with the J6 morons. None of which will ever be able to vote again. They are already investigating one bomb threat.

28th March 2023, 06:24 AM	#2499
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 34,758	Originally Posted by Parsman I shoplifted a chocolate bar. The shop owner wants to press charges, but 20 of my friends have got together and threatened to beat up the shop owner and vandalise the whole shopping street if the case goes ahead, so it should be dropped for the sake of peace? That seems to be what is being argued here, if on a somewhat larger scale. That's half of it, I think. The other half seems to be that you shouldn't be charged for that because you're really a bank robber.
	__________________ Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)

28th March 2023, 01:05 PM	#2500
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/ "In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law. Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement" thoughts?
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638

28th March 2023, 01:29 PM	#2501
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 11,828	Originally Posted by Hercules56 https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/ "In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law. Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement" thoughts? I think the National Review is a far-right media organization, and as such are prone to twisting things to favor Republicans in general and Trump in particular. I think that's another far right news source you're relying on, while claiming to stick with Yahoo News and CNN.

28th March 2023, 01:33 PM	#2502
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93,921	Originally Posted by Hercules56 https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/ "In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law. Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement" thoughts? Yeah that's that dishonest POV where some legislators are trying to interfere with Bragg no matter how many times these legislators hear the FACT the charge Bragg is investigating is lying on tax forms when Trump filed taxes in NY. CNN's Jake Tapper was one of the talking heads who kept telling James Comer that and Comer did the usual stunt of ignoring the facts and going right back to his talking point. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...comer-full.cnn Repeat a lie often enough...

28th March 2023, 02:06 PM	#2503
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,300	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Yeah that's that dishonest POV where some legislators are trying to interfere with Bragg no matter how many times these legislators hear the FACT the charge Bragg is investigating is lying on tax forms when Trump filed taxes in NY. CNN's Jake Tapper was one of the talking heads who kept telling James Comer that and Comer did the usual stunt of ignoring the facts and going right back to his talking point. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...comer-full.cnn Repeat a lie often enough... Yep...when Tapper said Bragg was investigating STATE crimes, after a few hmms and haws, Comer immediately deflects to the standard GOP talking points about crime: Quote: "Even at that, look, let's just be honest here. This is about politics, this a a presidential candidate. When you look at what we believe the role of the Manhattan DA should be is to fight crime. That's one of the biggest issues we saw in the midterm elections last November. Voters overwhelmingly rejected many Democrat candidates because of the crime issue. We have a crime issue in many of our cities and we're trying to do something about that in the House of Representatives. And one of the reasons we believe we have high crime rates in many parts of America is because we have prosecutors soft on crime." He goes on to talk about tax dollars being better spent on prosecution local criminals. According to Comer, the crime Trump committed just isn't as important as the local crimes the DA should be prosecuting. When Comer said "Look, let's just be honest here," I fully expected him to explode into flames.

28th March 2023, 03:06 PM	#2504
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 58,604	Originally Posted by Hercules56 https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/ "In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws. In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. He could decide that hush-money payoffs constitute campaign contributions even if presidents and attorneys general concluded otherwise. The president could not fire Bragg, though he could remove or countermand any U.S. attorney for acting contrary to his decisions on enforcing federal law. Should Bragg go forward, courts should strike down his unconstitutional backdoor effort to enforce federal campaign law. Imagine if Bragg were to succeed. Not only could Republican district attorneys launch similar investigations into the Biden family, but Republican states could start advancing policies that intrude on federal prerogatives and that are at odds with the priorities of the elected branches of the federal government. For example, Arizona could pass a state misdemeanor law that punishes violations of federal immigration law, which would allow a state to increase border enforcement beyond the Biden administration’s wishes. The Supreme Court struck down exactly such a state law in Arizona v. United States (2012), underscoring again that a state official such as Bragg cannot interfere with federal law enforcement" thoughts? Natonal review contiues it;s policy of tsk tsk ing at Trump's conduct, but coming around to supporting and defending him in the end.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

28th March 2023, 03:10 PM	#2505
Carlotta Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 1,021	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Yep...when Tapper said Bragg was investigating STATE crimes, after a few hmms and haws, Comer immediately deflects to the standard GOP talking points about crime: He goes on to talk about tax dollars being better spent on prosecution local criminals. According to Comer, the crime Trump committed just isn't as important as the local crimes the DA should be prosecuting. When Comer said "Look, let's just be honest here," I fully expected him to explode into flames. Funny, what I expected each time Comer started with "look" was for the next word to be "squirrel!"

28th March 2023, 03:45 PM	#2506
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 19,893	Originally Posted by Hercules56 https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ution-problem/ "In the Trump case, Bragg would be interpreting and prosecuting a violation of federal campaign laws." Ummm... no he wouldn't. He will likely be prosecuting a state level law of falsifying financial records and/or income tax evasion. (There may be a reference to the federal campaign laws as a REASON Trump falsified records, but that won't be the crime Bragg is prosecuting.) If an article gets such a basic fact wrong, you can probably assume they don't know what they are talking about. Quote: In this, he would be acting contrary to the settled view of the U.S. Justice Department, which conducted its own probe and chose not to bring a prosecution. Another questionable argument by an article that was already on shakey ground. The DoJ has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. And even if the DoJ was willing to indict a sitting president, given the fact that the DoJ was headed by a Trump sycophant any rejection of the charge likely had more to do with the political leanings of the Attorney General than on the merits of the case.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

28th March 2023, 05:22 PM	#2507
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,300	Originally Posted by Carlotta Funny, what I expected each time Comer started with "look" was for the next word to be "squirrel!" That was the intended effect!

28th March 2023, 07:22 PM	#2509
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The old Same place Posts: 10,842	Originally Posted by newyorkguy I noted how many times Comer said, "This is a presidential candidate," as though the edict not to indict a president while he is in office should now be extended to candidates for president. As ABC News quoted from the CNN interview: It feels like Comer is merely adopting trump's newest line of attack: Oh, it was very clear from the get go, never mind he keeps bleating about it, Trump declared last year with at least the idea if not the belief if not the confidence he can bullpoop his base that being a candidate would shield him from the law. It's like kids chasing each other around the house. They can evade capture if they touch the potted palm and yell, "Safe!"
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 28th March 2023 at 08:52 PM.

28th March 2023, 07:26 PM	#2510
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,300	Originally Posted by newyorkguy I noted how many times Comer said, "This is a presidential candidate," as though the edict not to indict a president while he is in office should now be extended to candidates for president. As ABC News quoted from the CNN interview: It feels like Comer is merely adopting trump's newest line of attack: Not just Comer. It's the 'go to' for all of them. They think it's the new kevlar.

28th March 2023, 07:40 PM	#2511
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 14,972	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Not just Comer. It's the 'go to' for all of them. They think it's the new kevlar. They WHAT??!
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

29th March 2023, 06:34 AM	#2512
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand Posts: 55,225	Some brainless MAGA ******* pulled a knife on a couple and their children out the courthouse in Manhattan. MAGA Diehard Waves Knife at Family Outside NYC Courthouse: Officials Quote: A Trump supporter was arrested outside the Manhattan criminal courthouse on Tuesday after she pulled a knife out and threatened a woman who had small children with her, officials said. The 39-year-old protester was bearing a sign that read “I STAND WITH TRUMP DO YOU?” when she and two pedestrians passing by got into a heated verbal exchange, the exact nature of which was not immediately clear. Three witnesses told Politico that the passersby were a man and a woman with two children in strollers. As the argument escalated, the protester yanked a knife from her hip and began waving it at the group, a court spokesperson said. Court officers interceded, guns drawn, and ordered the protester to drop the knife, which she did. She was then taken into custody without incident. The incident comes as New York City braces for a looming indictment of the former president in a hush-money case, with a grand jury vote on the matter reportedly not expected until next week at the earliest.
	__________________ "An empty void is growing between his ears. Distant screams can be heard echoing in the darkness." -- JihadJane

29th March 2023, 01:03 PM	#2513
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 19,893	This is really going to frustrate a lot of people. From: ABC News The Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money paid on Donald Trump’s behalf is scheduled to consider other matters next week before taking a previously scheduled two-week hiatus...That means a vote on whether or not to indict the former president likely wouldn't come until late April at the earliest. I can appreciate that they would want to make sure they take the time to build a solid case. But given the way Bragg torpedoed the potential criminal fraud case against Trump, its probably natural to worry he might be getting cold feet over this case as well.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

29th March 2023, 04:46 PM	#2514
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93,921	Originally Posted by Carlotta Funny, what I expected each time Comer started with "look" was for the next word to be "squirrel!" Originally Posted by Stacyhs ... When Comer said "Look, let's just be honest here," I fully expected him to explode into flames. Originally Posted by Segnosaur ... If an article gets such a basic fact wrong, you can probably assume they don't know what they are talking about.... Pretty sure they know exactly what they are doing. Originally Posted by Segnosaur This is really going to frustrate a lot of people. From: ABC News The Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money paid on Donald Trump’s behalf is scheduled to consider other matters next week before taking a previously scheduled two-week hiatus...That means a vote on whether or not to indict the former president likely wouldn't come until late April at the earliest. I can appreciate that they would want to make sure they take the time to build a solid case. But given the way Bragg torpedoed the potential criminal fraud case against Trump, its probably natural to worry he might be getting cold feet over this case as well. Might be they are coordinating, Georgia and Garland. This is just speculating but it is just possible they don't want to lead with the weaker prosecution. If Trump were to win that might do a wee bit of damage to the next 2 prosecutions. And Trump might stall and stall in NY then say he can't appear in Georgia or DC because he's tied up in court or his attorney is. We should also consider it was the Grifter in Orange who said the NY indictment was going to happen last week. Bragg never said that.

30th March 2023, 07:03 AM	#2515
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	Looks like Bragg has decided his low-level charges are just not fit this level of criminal, and we should wait for more serious charges to hopefully appear from the feds or Georgia.
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638

30th March 2023, 09:22 AM	#2516
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 50,196	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Looks like Bragg has decided his low-level charges are just not fit this level of criminal, and we should wait for more serious charges to hopefully appear from the feds or Georgia. Is this just an assumption or do you have a link to back this 'looks like' up?
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."