Is Trump a Criminal?

[Ellen Brown]

I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest he is fully a part of Organized Crime. Look at his involvement in Atlantic City and Las Vegas.

 

[james dixon]

Ellen Brown; that "look" has already taken place. I know the prefered result is instantiatious but some things take a bit of time.
Trump's end is in sight---
as is our human dedication to the rule of law;,.,.,.,. thanks to Trump.

-

 

[Watchmen]

Personally I think trump is a criminal who colluded with foreigners to win the election or in the least knew who/what they were doing and liked/did not expose them for self serving reasons. In short, Trump is guilty; to the point of a treasonous act.

So yes; trump IS guilty

Evidence?

 

[Watchmen]

Trump believes that he stands above the US law. So in his own eyes he is not a criminal. He has done plenty that would have put others in jail for life if I can believe the newspapers. The #MeToo movement, many got in trouble, not Trump, though he publicly announced "I GrabbedThem@TheKitten and they liked it". I guess Trump stands above the US Law, so then he is not a criminal and can get away with anything. Lying as a president is a crime. So he is a bit guilty of that also. I think he is guilty of so many crimes that once they start this investigation it will take centuries to work it out.

Any specifics? Evidence?

 

[stvdv]

Any specifics? Evidence?

That was my personal opinion. I also think/believe that the very rich (the elite or whatever) pull the strings. They put Trump as president, because they needed him to do what he does. So he will never be charged I think. I don't count his lies, but I think it has been more than 10. Would be too much for me. If one must lie so much, just to be president, I would never like to become president.

And for specifics/evidence .. just google. I just gave my opinion based on what I read in the news/internet

I do remember some people protesting against Trump at that time I wrote my opinion 1 month ago. In the newspapers they were talking about giving them like 10-60 years prison each, just for protesting against the president. I found that a bit (understatement) over the top, compared to all the lies the president has told (again .. according to the newspapers and internet .. not sure ... maybe the newspapers lied ... maybe Trump never lied). In the end, if I remember correctly, the people were not given 60 years. At least some common sense prevailed.

But I do know where smoke is there is fire. So I am pretty sure the president did tell a few lies.

To me "speaking truth" is number 1 rule, hence my opinion. Others maybe don't think speaking truth is that important, so they go easier on Trump and lying.

 

[esmith]

I am assuming that those that think so have never had a full background investigation.
Do you really think that the scurrility that President Trump had to go through to become President couldn't find any proof to back up that opinion.

 

[tytlyf]

I am assuming that those that think so have never had a full background investigation.
Do you really think that the scurrility that President Trump had to go through to become President couldn't find any proof to back up that opinion.

Who needs a background check? Donald has been defrauding thousands of people long before the election! Criminal animal!

 

[Riders]

Obstruction of justice with firing of sessions and the other one, tax fraud, fraud with the Trump Foundation, theres lots of other stuff.

 

[columbus]

Only if he's convicted of anything. So far it's clear he's not a criminal.

Do you think Al Capone was a criminal prior to being convicted of tax evasion?
Tom

 

[esmith]

Who needs a background check? Donald has been defrauding thousands of people long before the election! Criminal animal!

Unfortunately you are very uninformed; therefore any statements you make are subject to that.

 

[esmith]

Obstruction of justice with firing of sessions and the other one, tax fraud, fraud with the Trump Foundation, theres lots of other stuff.

Got any proof or do we put you in the same category as @tytlyf and others.

 

[tytlyf]

Unfortunately you are very uninformed; therefore any statements you make are subject to that.

Says the Trump, Fox and Rush lover.

 

[esmith]

Says the Trump, Fox and Rush lover.

Seems like you got it wrong.
The only thing I love is my spouse and my Country.

 

[metis]

If we connect-the-dots, it's almost a gimme that there has been criminal activity within the Trump camp, so the only question is whom and whether the Donald was involved or knew what was happening?

Mueller hired some criminal lawyers, for one "dot", and the investigation has been going along for a long time now, which is a second "dot". The reasoning for the latter dot is that if nothing was showing up then it would not as likely take this long, and with these investigations the more that shows up tends to extend the investigation as it implies more people were likely involved in what could be criminal activities. Mueller has a bipartisan reputation of being precise and fair historically, and even the Donald praised him early on.

My guess is if there's any solid against Trump it is not as likely to be with "collusion" or even "conspiracy" but more with illegal monetary transactions, which he had on numerous occasions been previously fined for, and "obstruction of justice", which is pretty much a slam-dunk but to which point does it warrant criminal prosecution? I don't know.

Well, these investigations usually start from the tail of the "snake" and if there's something there they get eventually to the head, and it seems likely that Mueller has found that "something(s) there" based on his actions. Even Donald Jr. says he expects to be indicted at anytime soon.

I'm willing to wait and see.

 

[YmirGF]

If we connect-the-dots, it's almost a gimme that there has been criminal activity within the Trump camp, so the only question is whom and whether the Donald was involved or knew what was happening?

Mueller hired some criminal lawyers, for one "dot", and the investigation has been going along for a long time now, which is a second "dot". The reasoning for the latter dot is that if nothing was showing up then it would not as likely take this long, and with these investigations the more that shows up tends to extend the investigation as it implies more people were likely involved in what could be criminal activities. Mueller has a bipartisan reputation of being precise and fair historically, and even the Donald praised him early on.

My guess is if there's any solid against Trump it is not as likely to be with "collusion" or even "conspiracy" but more with illegal monetary transactions, which he had on numerous occasions been previously fined for, and "obstruction of justice", which is pretty much a slam-dunk but to which point does it warrant criminal prosecution? I don't know.

Well, these investigations usually start from the tail of the "snake" and if there's something there they get eventually to the head, and it seems likely that Mueller has found that "something(s) there" based on his actions. Even Donald Jr. says he expects to be indicted at anytime soon.

I'm willing to wait and see.

That is one of the most reasonable analysis I have seen. I don't agree with some of it, but it is refreshing to see that some folks are still thinking. Perhaps there is hope yet.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Ellen Brown; that "look" has already taken place. I know the prefered result is instantiatious but some things take a bit of time.
Trump's end is in sight---
as is our human dedication to the rule of law;,.,.,.,. thanks to Trump.

-

I hope you are right. Trump only happened because too many Americans sat there on their dead butts, and being stupid. Perhaps even more gullible than the Children of Israel when they made the Golden Calf?

 

[Curious George]

I know in the courts we have an assumption of innocence until proven guilty; however, that does not really hold in the public opinion. So we are only talking about opinions here, which should still be supported by evidence but nonetheless an opinion. So in your opinion, considering what we know, is Trump a criminal?

I do not think that is a fairly worded question.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Despite the fact that he needs a legal trial, his own public words are fairly incriminating to put it mildly.