Every Major Potential Lawsuit Against Trump

[Axe Elf]

In another thread (Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt), @Stanyon asked the question, "Has Trump been formally charged and convicted of a crime?"

I was curious too, so I Googled...

According to this article, it's not clear whether or not a sitting President of the United States CAN be formally charged and convicted of a crime, although they suspect that it may be possible for charges to be brought, so long as the conviction does not occur until after the President has left office (by impeachment or expiration of his term).

Still, it's kind of interesting to see just how many potential lawsuits Trump is currently facing, and the matters that each of them addresses.

So, here... this seems like a pretty exhaustive answer (or future answer, anyway).

The People vs. Donald Trump: An Updated Guide to Every Major Lawsuit the President Faces

 

[Stanyon]

So the simple answer to my question is no.

 

[Watchmen]

In another thread (Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt), @Stanyon asked the question, "Has Trump been formally charged and convicted of a crime?"

Answer: No.

There you go, folks. Move along.

 

[ecco]

So the simple answer to my question is no.

Answer: No.

There you go, folks. Move along.

Wasn't he forced to close his charitable fund?
Wasn't he forced to make restitution to people enrolled in Trump University?

 

[Watchmen]

Wasn't he forced to close his charitable fund?
Wasn't he forced to make restitution to people enrolled in Trump University?

The question was whether he’s been charged and convicted of any crimes. The answer is No.

 

[sun rise]

So the simple answer to my question is no.

The question about whether or not he can even be charged with a crime while in office (outside of impeachment) has never been settled. So technically you're correct - he's not been charged. Yet. We'll see what 2019 brings.

 

[sun rise]

For those that are interested here's a discussion amongst experts from way before the current regime on the question of indicting a sitting President https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

 

[ecco]

Wasn't he forced to close his charitable fund?
Wasn't he forced to make restitution to people enrolled in Trump University?

The question was whether he’s been charged and convicted of any crimes. The answer is No.

Spoken by a true sheeple.

You people railed against the Clintons for what you were told was mismanagement of their charitable organization. No court ever found they did anything wrong.

Yet when a court tells the Trumps to close their fraudulent charity and make restitution, you're OK with it.

The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[Axe Elf]

So the simple answer to my question is no.

Answer: No.

Yes, the simple answer is no. But the question itself is much more interesting than a mere observation of what HAS happened thus far, and that's why I didn't just say "no" in the other thread and move on; I thought that the issue of the potential lawsuits that Trump is facing was interesting enough to have its own thread, as those lawsuits are remarkable both in their broad scope and their high number.

I know if I was in that much hot water, I would have a hard time focusing on my work and my relationships, which could be a serious problem if my job was running the most powerful country in the free world. Someone less stable than myself might even start to think about ending their own life, which could be a serious problem when they are accompanied at all times by a "football" and a "biscuit" that could end all life on Earth. If you throw symptoms of egomaniacal narcissim into the mix, this matter of impending legal apocalypse becomes even more interesting.

But if you're satisfied with the simple answer "no," then you're probably not interested in all that.

 

[Shadow Link]

Some of you guys are way behind the ball on this stuff. Trump admitted most of his dealings during the election cycles and more, "giving money to both sides for years" ect. He tried to level with the American people. I guess some on here obviously weren't paying attention at that time.

 

[Watchmen]

Spoken by a true sheeple.

You people railed against the Clintons for what you were told was mismanagement of their charitable organization. No court ever found they did anything wrong.

Yet when a court tells the Trumps to close their fraudulent charity and make restitution, you're OK with it.

The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

“You people”? Not a good way to start a conversation.

The OP asked a specific question about “criminal” charges, and I gave a simple answer. If you want to talk about charitable organizations And compare and contrast the Clintons and Trump then I suggest you start another thread.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, the simple answer is no. But the question itself is much more interesting than a mere observation of what HAS happened thus far, and that's why I didn't just say "no" in the other thread and move on; I thought that the issue of the potential lawsuits that Trump is facing was interesting enough to have its own thread, as those lawsuits are remarkable both in their broad scope and their high number.

I know if I was in that much hot water, I would have a hard time focusing on my work and my relationships, which could be a serious problem if my job was running the most powerful country in the free world. Someone less stable than myself might even start to think about ending their own life, which could be a serious problem when they are accompanied at all times by a "football" and a "biscuit" that could end all life on Earth. If you throw symptoms of egomaniacal narcissim into the mix, this matter of impending legal apocalypse becomes even more interesting.

But if you're satisfied with the simple answer "no," then you're probably not interested in all that.

You talk about criminal charges then you talk about civil lawsuits. Are you aware there’s a difference?

If you wanted to talk about “potential lawsuits” why did you ask a question about criminal charges and convictions? Methinks you’re trying to show Trump has done something criminal based on “potential” civil actions. Apples and oranges.

 

[Axe Elf]

You talk about criminal charges then you talk about civil lawsuits. Are you aware there’s a difference?

I am. Both are of interest to me, and both are addressed in the article I posted in the OP.

If you wanted to talk about “potential lawsuits” why did you ask a question about criminal charges and convictions?

I didn't ask a question about anything. Stanyon asked a question about criminal charges and convictions in another thread that made me curious, and I found the results of my Google search to be interesting enough to post for general discussion.

Methinks you’re trying to show Trump has done something criminal based on “potential” civil actions.

I'm not trying to show anything. Whether Trump is guilty of a crime or liable for civil damages will be shown in court. I just find the number of potential criminal charges and civil lawsuits facing the President to be of interest, that's all.

 

[Watchmen]

I am. Both are of interest to me, and both are addressed in the article I posted in the OP.



I didn't ask a question about anything. Stanyon asked a question about criminal charges and convictions in another thread that made me curious, and I found the results of my Google search to be interesting enough to post for general discussion.



I'm not trying to show anything. Whether Trump is guilty of a crime or liable for civil damages will be shown in court. I just find the number of potential criminal charges and civil lawsuits facing the President to be of interest, that's all.

Fair enough.

 

[ecco]

Some of you guys are way behind the ball on this stuff. Trump admitted most of his dealings during the election cycles and more, "giving money to both sides for years" ect. He tried to level with the American people. I guess some on here obviously weren't paying attention at that time.

You mean when he said Mexico was going to pay for a border wall?
You mean when he said he was going to bring back the coal industry?
You mean when he said he was going to save American automobile worker's jobs?
Yeah. I was paying attention and I recognized BS bluster when I heard it.
Were you paying attention? Did you believe the BS bluster? It sounds like you still believe it.

First full year of Trump's administration and the DOW is down 5.6% despite a massive corporate tax cut.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Spoken by a true sheeple.
You people railed against the Clintons for what you were told was mismanagement of their charitable organization. No court ever found they did anything wrong.
Yet when a court tells the Trumps to close their fraudulent charity and make restitution, you're OK with it.
The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.​

“You people”? Not a good way to start a conversation.

Why? What's wrong with "you people"? Would you have been happier if I said "The group mostly made up of God-fearing right-wing conspiracy-theory-believing Trump Sheeples?

The OP asked a specific question about “criminal” charges, and I gave a simple answer. If you want to talk about charitable organizations And compare and contrast the Clintons and Trump then I suggest you start another thread.

You can suggest anything you want to suggest. If I choose to comment on the overwhelming stench of hypocrisy, I will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question was whether he’s been charged and convicted of any crimes. The answer is No.

And what meaning are you taking from this? That Trump is innocent of everything he's accused of?

 

[Watchmen]

ecco said: ↑
Spoken by a true sheeple.
You people railed against the Clintons for what you were told was mismanagement of their charitable organization. No court ever found they did anything wrong.
Yet when a court tells the Trumps to close their fraudulent charity and make restitution, you're OK with it.
The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.​

Why? What's wrong with "you people"? Would you have been happier if I said "The group mostly made up of God-fearing right-wing conspiracy-theory-believing Trump Sheeples

Thanks, you just proved my point. By lumping me in with “you people” you made drastically inaccurate assumptions about me.

I am not God-fearing. I have no religion and am not a particularly spiritual person. Perhaps I’m agnostic.

I am not right-wing. I’m a solid moderate who has voted for Democrats and Republicans, and I will continue to vote for the candidates who I believe most closely align with the interests of my family.

I am not a “conspiracy theorist.”

I am not a Trump Sheeple. I agree with some things he had done and disagree with others.

Maybe now you understand the flaw in using the phrase “you people,” but I suspect you’ll refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Watchmen]

And what meaning are you taking from this? That Trump is innocent of everything he's accused of?

Of course not. I take away that he hasn’t been charged or convicted. No more. No less.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course not. I take away that he hasn’t been charged or convicted. No more. No less.

So you don't see his lack of conviction (so far) as outweighing the evidence against him personally or the many convictions of his team members? Good to know.