I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…
-
Let's see, worse than causing an insurrection and an attempted coup to override a fair election. Worse than molesting and raping dozens of women and just grabbing them by the pussy. Worse than lying to America and saying that Covid is nothing to worry about and will just vanish, poof!, while doing nothing in the first critical days of its spread except to keep Chinese from flying to America. Worse than stealing top secret documents and most likely having already sold many of them to Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
Hmmmmm, those people must have done something pretty bad.@NobodySock said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Let's see, worse than causing an insurrection and an attempted coup to override a fair election. Worse than molesting and raping dozens of women and just grabbing them by the pussy. Worse than lying to America and saying that Covid is nothing to worry about and will just vanish, poof!, while doing nothing in the first critical days of its spread except to keep Chinese from flying to America. Worse than stealing top secret documents and most likely having already sold many of them to Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
Hmmmmm, those people must have done something pretty bad.He did all of that? Shocking!
-
Is there anything Trump can't do?
-
@jon-nyc said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
None of the charges are about actual justice. They are political in nature, designed for one purpose.
Yes, Trump is as innocent as the day is long.
Let's put it this way...There are people in politics guilty of much worse things than Trump. Yet, Trump seems to be the only one worthy of such scrutiny...
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Let's put it this way...There are people in politics guilty of much worse things than Trump.
I suspect it is not in the interest of either tribe to examine corruption too closely as it is so thoughtfully interwoven into the fabric of our nation's system of governance.
As for DJT, he's got a pretty long history of grift, deception, theft and such. A review of the 7 heavenly virtues vs sins versus the 7 deadly sins would suggest Trump does better the latter, than the former.
Vitrue: Temperance, Diligence, Kindness, Patience, Humility, Chastity
Sin: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Wrath, PrideOn the other hand, I suspect very few congress critters do well with integrity or most of the virtues. It's not like one team owns integrity.
The system encourages (requires?) that politicians sell themselves. And looking backward, while the scale of corruption may be more ingrained, it was always there. -
To me, saying that others maybe did the same thing is no excuse. Fine, go after them also. But to say that President Trump should get a "free pass" because of this is a bad idea.
Normalizing the behavior is a downward trend.
Suppose you are traveling down a road side by side with another car. The speed limit 60 kph and you two cars are going 80kph. The police man stops just you and the other car continues. You get a ticket. Should you not get the ticket because there was another car (that did not get a ticket) doing the same thing? Do you think a judge would agree to that strategy?
-
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Let's put it this way...There are people in politics guilty of much worse things than Trump.
I suspect it is not in the interest of either tribe to examine corruption too closely as it is so thoughtfully interwoven into the fabric of our nation's system of governance.
As for DJT, he's got a pretty long history of grift, deception, theft and such. A review of the 7 heavenly virtues vs sins versus the 7 deadly sins would suggest Trump does better the latter, than the former.
Vitrue: Temperance, Diligence, Kindness, Patience, Humility, Chastity
Sin: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Wrath, PrideOn the other hand, I suspect very few congress critters do well with integrity or most of the virtues. It's not like one team owns integrity.
The system encourages (requires?) that politicians sell themselves. And looking backward, while the scale of corruption may be more ingrained, it was always there.@kluurs said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Let's put it this way...There are people in politics guilty of much worse things than Trump.
I suspect it is not in the interest of either tribe to examine corruption too closely as it is so thoughtfully interwoven into the fabric of our nation's system of governance.
As for DJT, he's got a pretty long history of grift, deception, theft and such. A review of the 7 heavenly virtues vs sins versus the 7 deadly sins would suggest Trump does better the latter, than the former.
Vitrue: Temperance, Diligence, Kindness, Patience, Humility, Chastity
Sin: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Wrath, PrideOn the other hand, I suspect very few congress critters do well with integrity or most of the virtues. It's not like one team owns integrity.
The system encourages (requires?) that politicians sell themselves. And looking backward, while the scale of corruption may be more ingrained, it was always there.You probably know as well as I do, there aren't any saints who inhabit the Oval Office.
-
There's no question that bad behavior on the part of one party doesn't excuse similar bad behavior on another party.
But...when one party is not prosecuted and another one is, that's problematic. The situation isn't quite as simple as a cop stopping one speeder and not another. Clinton's mishandling of classified materials, and destruction of potential evidence doesn't excuse Trump, but it makes you question what the Department of Justice is doing.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
There's no question that bad behavior on the part of one party doesn't excuse similar bad behavior on another party.
But...when one party is not prosecuted and another one is, that's problematic. The situation isn't quite as simple as a cop stopping one speeder and not another. Clinton's mishandling of classified materials, and destruction of potential evidence doesn't excuse Trump, but it makes you question what the Department of Justice is doing.
-
There's no question that bad behavior on the part of one party doesn't excuse similar bad behavior on another party.
But...when one party is not prosecuted and another one is, that's problematic. The situation isn't quite as simple as a cop stopping one speeder and not another. Clinton's mishandling of classified materials, and destruction of potential evidence doesn't excuse Trump, but it makes you question what the Department of Justice is doing.
@George-K said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
But...when one party is not prosecuted and another one is, that's problematic. The situation isn't quite as simple as a cop stopping one speeder and not another. Clinton's mishandling of classified materials, and destruction of potential evidence doesn't excuse Trump, but it makes you question what the Department of Justice is doing.
No, Trump's mishandling of classified material is singularly bad, there is no equivalent in the history of the US that has not been prosecuted by the government.
-
To me, saying that others maybe did the same thing is no excuse. Fine, go after them also. But to say that President Trump should get a "free pass" because of this is a bad idea.
Normalizing the behavior is a downward trend.
Suppose you are traveling down a road side by side with another car. The speed limit 60 kph and you two cars are going 80kph. The police man stops just you and the other car continues. You get a ticket. Should you not get the ticket because there was another car (that did not get a ticket) doing the same thing? Do you think a judge would agree to that strategy?
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
To me, saying that others maybe did the same thing is no excuse. Fine, go after them also. But to say that President Trump should get a "free pass" because of this is a bad idea.
Normalizing the behavior is a downward trend.
Suppose you are traveling down a road side by side with another car. The speed limit 60 kph and you two cars are going 80kph. The police man stops just you and the other car continues. You get a ticket. Should you not get the ticket because there was another car (that did not get a ticket) doing the same thing? Do you think a judge would agree to that strategy?
Better yet, how about two cars are going down the road, one doing 80 and the other doing 100. The cop has orders to let the 100kph go, while stopping the 80kph car. Better yet, the news media is waiting with multiple reporters and camera crews to cover the traffic stop of the person doing 80. They notice the other car doing 100, but ignore it.
Now, you have a better analogy.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
But...when one party is not prosecuted and another one is, that's problematic. The situation isn't quite as simple as a cop stopping one speeder and not another. Clinton's mishandling of classified materials, and destruction of potential evidence doesn't excuse Trump, but it makes you question what the Department of Justice is doing.
No, Trump's mishandling of classified material is singularly bad, there is no equivalent in the history of the US that has not been prosecuted by the government.
@Axtremus said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
No, Trump's mishandling of classified material is singularly bad, there is no equivalent in the history of the US that has not been prosecuted by the government.
Sandy Berger, and Hillary Clinton come to mind.
-
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
To me, saying that others maybe did the same thing is no excuse. Fine, go after them also. But to say that President Trump should get a "free pass" because of this is a bad idea.
Normalizing the behavior is a downward trend.
Suppose you are traveling down a road side by side with another car. The speed limit 60 kph and you two cars are going 80kph. The police man stops just you and the other car continues. You get a ticket. Should you not get the ticket because there was another car (that did not get a ticket) doing the same thing? Do you think a judge would agree to that strategy?
Better yet, how about two cars are going down the road, one doing 80 and the other doing 100. The cop has orders to let the 100kph go, while stopping the 80kph car. Better yet, the news media is waiting with multiple reporters and camera crews to cover the traffic stop of the person doing 80. They notice the other car doing 100, but ignore it.
Now, you have a better analogy.
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Now, you have a better analogy.
Does that make the driver of the car going 80 kph less guilty? I dont think so.
It may not be fair, but sometimes life is not fair.
As the saying goes, "suck it up buttercup!" LOL
-
@George-K I understand what you are saying, but a defense of "others are doing the same thing and not getting arrested" isn't much of a defense.
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
others are doing the same thing and not getting arrested
It isn't just "others", it is ALL others are not getting arrested.
Nobody is ever arrested for what he did.
Why not? Because, it is not illegal.
-
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Now, you have a better analogy.
Does that make the driver of the car going 80 kph less guilty? I dont think so.
It may not be fair, but sometimes life is not fair.
As the saying goes, "suck it up buttercup!" LOL
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Now, you have a better analogy.
Does that make the driver of the car going 80 kph less guilty? I dont think so.
It may not be fair, but sometimes life is not fair.
As the saying goes, "suck it up buttercup!" LOL
If that be the case, then bring out The Long Knives.
-
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
others are doing the same thing and not getting arrested
It isn't just "others", it is ALL others are not getting arrested.
Nobody is ever arrested for what he did.
Why not? Because, it is not illegal.
@Copper said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Why not? Because, it is not illegal.
From my background research in true crime podcasts (LOL), it seems like the US court goes like this:
- Investigation is done
- Results of the investigation are given to the attorney
- Attorney department decides if there is enough evidence to prove a crime
- Shows investigation results/evidence to a grand jury
- Grand jury decides if what they have seen indicate a crime has been committed
- If yes, they indict and the case goest to trial
- At trial, both sides present and a judge or jury determines innocent or guilty
In general, I believe the US system is designed to find people not guilty. In other words, it seems that the systems would rather let 99 guilty people go free as long as the 1 innocent person is not unfairly convicted. Nothing wrong with that - it is a system that has worked well for more than 200 years.
Another random thought not specifically regarding this case. In my feeble mind, I always thought that if someone was pretty sure they were not guilty and had evidence to back that up, they would be better off hearing the trial by a judge rather than a jury. If they were guilty, they would be better using a jury so that emotion could come into the equation.
@Copper At this point, we are step 6 of my steps above. It will be interesting to see how this finally plays out. I am not smart enough to know at this point if it was legal or not. It seems that even "experts" in law dont know either. Some say yes, some say no.
-
@Copper said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Why not? Because, it is not illegal.
From my background research in true crime podcasts (LOL), it seems like the US court goes like this:
- Investigation is done
- Results of the investigation are given to the attorney
- Attorney department decides if there is enough evidence to prove a crime
- Shows investigation results/evidence to a grand jury
- Grand jury decides if what they have seen indicate a crime has been committed
- If yes, they indict and the case goest to trial
- At trial, both sides present and a judge or jury determines innocent or guilty
In general, I believe the US system is designed to find people not guilty. In other words, it seems that the systems would rather let 99 guilty people go free as long as the 1 innocent person is not unfairly convicted. Nothing wrong with that - it is a system that has worked well for more than 200 years.
Another random thought not specifically regarding this case. In my feeble mind, I always thought that if someone was pretty sure they were not guilty and had evidence to back that up, they would be better off hearing the trial by a judge rather than a jury. If they were guilty, they would be better using a jury so that emotion could come into the equation.
@Copper At this point, we are step 6 of my steps above. It will be interesting to see how this finally plays out. I am not smart enough to know at this point if it was legal or not. It seems that even "experts" in law dont know either. Some say yes, some say no.
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
- Investigation is done
- Results of the investigation are given to the attorney
- Attorney department decides if there is enough evidence to prove a crime
- Shows investigation results/evidence to a grand jury
- Grand jury decides if what they have seen indicate a crime has been committed
- If yes, they indict and the case goest to trial
- At trial, both sides present and a judge or jury determines innocent or guilty
And #3 on your list presumes a "reasonable prosecutor" who will bring the case to a grand jury. This is where political non-prosecution dies.
-
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
- Investigation is done
- Results of the investigation are given to the attorney
- Attorney department decides if there is enough evidence to prove a crime
- Shows investigation results/evidence to a grand jury
- Grand jury decides if what they have seen indicate a crime has been committed
- If yes, they indict and the case goest to trial
- At trial, both sides present and a judge or jury determines innocent or guilty
And #3 on your list presumes a "reasonable prosecutor" who will bring the case to a grand jury. This is where political non-prosecution dies.
@George-K Agree. But I do think that overall, the US system "works". There are enough check/balances. If the investigation/evidence was that bad, then the grand jury would not move forward.
(Yes, I know that the grand jury is heavily bias to the prosecution, but.....)
-
@George-K Agree. But I do think that overall, the US system "works". There are enough check/balances. If the investigation/evidence was that bad, then the grand jury would not move forward.
(Yes, I know that the grand jury is heavily bias to the prosecution, but.....)
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
There are enough check/balances. If the investigation/evidence was that bad, then the grand jury would not move forward.
I think you missed my point. You have to have a "reasonable prosecutor" to even bring the case before a grand jury. If he doesn't, it dies.
