Trump to be indicted - again.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
But, ignorance or your (possibly incorrect) interpretation of the law is no excuse and does not make you less guilty.
THat's right, in most cases. However, I was assured by (then) Attorney General Comey that though reckless, such behaviors did not convey an intent, so it's all right, dontcha know.
Of course, previously excused bad behavior is not an excuse for present bad behavior. It does, however, make one question the legitimacy of the process and the system.
"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 going back as a society from TDS.
The TDS sufferers would frame that as, there's no going back from the election of Donald Trump.
Personally I don't give Trump that much power. I do give the society-wide mobs and their socially encouraged hatred and disgust, that much power. Because mobs like that have been fundamentally powerful forces through all of history. No reason to expect that to stop now, even with a very strong constitution.
-
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@taiwan_girl said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
But, ignorance or your (possibly incorrect) interpretation of the law is no excuse and does not make you less guilty.
THat's right, in most cases. However, I was assured by (then) Attorney General Comey that though reckless, such behaviors did not convey an intent, so it's all right, dontcha know.
Of course, previously excused bad behavior is not an excuse for present bad behavior. It does, however, make one question the legitimacy of the process and the system.
I undestand (and kind of agree with) what you are saying. But again, like Ambassador Bolton said (and I am certainly no fan of his, but agree with this),
"Does that mean you give Donald Trump a free pass? Is your answer to the double standard problem to have no standard at all?"
In any case, I think that judges are required (maybe obligated is a better word) to look at each case indvidiaully. I think they have to build a silo, and just look at the evidence in THIS case. The fact that President Biden or Secretary Clinton have not (yet) been charged is not evidence in this case as to whether President Trump is guilty or not.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@taiwan_girl said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
But, ignorance or your (possibly incorrect) interpretation of the law is no excuse and does not make you less guilty.
THat's right, in most cases. However, I was assured by (then) Attorney General Comey that though reckless, such behaviors did not convey an intent, so it's all right, dontcha know.
Of course, previously excused bad behavior is not an excuse for present bad behavior. It does, however, make one question the legitimacy of the process and the system.
I undestand (and kind of agree with) what you are saying. But again, like Ambassador Bolton said (and I am certainly no fan of his, but agree with this),
"Does that mean you give Donald Trump a free pass? Is your answer to the double standard problem to have no standard at all?"
In any case, I think that judges are required (maybe obligated is a better word) to look at each case indvidiaully. I think they have to build a silo, and just look at the evidence in THIS case, and this case alone. The fact that President Biden or Secretary Clinton have not (yet) been charged is not evidence in this case as to whether President Trump is guilty or not. In fact, it really has nothing to do with it.
-
@taiwan_girl Ignorance of the Law is no defense in almost all cases, but the difference between a misdemeanor and Espionage Charges is specifically about intent, which presupposes awareness of the law, but even more, it presupposes purpose. Espionage implies a nefarious purpose. That’s a hard row to hoe in this case…
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad I believe that there is about a 0% chance President Trump will be convicted. i think that there will at least be one person on the jury (I assume this would be a jury case) who would vote against conviction no matter what.
I think with 12 people, the odds will be pretty good.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@LuFins-Dad I believe that there is about a 0% chance President Trump will be convicted. i think that there will at least be one person on the jury (I assume this would be a jury case) who would vote against conviction no matter what.
I think with 12 people, the odds will be pretty good.
But there are charges that I don’t see him being able to walk away from… Obstruction…
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@taiwan_girl said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@LuFins-Dad I believe that there is about a 0% chance President Trump will be convicted. i think that there will at least be one person on the jury (I assume this would be a jury case) who would vote against conviction no matter what.
I think with 12 people, the odds will be pretty good.
But there are charges that I don’t see him being able to walk away from… Obstruction…
That will be the hardest one. But Trump or no, I have a really hard time seeing obstruction charges against anybody for a crime that doesn't exist. Gotcha law is bad law and carries a whiff of Stalinism.
-
Jack Smith has another charge, a very serious one, he could bring in New Jersey.
NJ, where Trump’s summer home is, is where he was caught on tape showing highly classified documents to journalists with no clearance at all. He goes on to say that he could have declassified the docs as president but didn’t, so they’re still secret. Literally. On tape.
-
-
