I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…
-
@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.
-
Secondly, go talk to some folks defended by the Public Defender's office.
-
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Secondly, go talk to some folks defended by the Public Defender's office.
Money talks. For sure, if I did a crime, I would have a much better chance to get off if I could hire my own lawyer, investigators, expert witness, etc.
-
President Trump on Hugh Hewitt show earlier this week
QUOTE
In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” that dropped Wednesday, the host asked Trump, “Did you direct anyone to move the boxes, Mr. President? Did you tell anyone to move the boxes?” referring to the boxes of more than 300 classified documents the federal government seized last year from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.”
UNQUOTEANd I shake my head yet again.
-
What if he’s right? I really don’t know.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Mik said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
What if he’s right? I really don’t know.
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2203
From the Presidential Records act
g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
-
@Mik said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
What if he’s right? I really don’t know.
You think he does?
Trump may be many things. Detail oriented isn't one of them.
