Trump Indicted. To be Arrested in Days.

[Revoltingest]

Aren't you happy that w are moving in the right direction? And there are at least three other cases that are likely to have an indictment, and his civil rape case that looks bad for him. He's gotten away with decades of criminal activity and karma is a *****.

I want to believe that prosecuting Trump is the beginning
of a trend to hold the high & mighty accountable.
But my expectations are low because it seems more
about outrage than a general pursuit of justice.'
Just watch....if/when Trump is arrested, he won't be
cuffed. And he'll be told of it ahead of time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, no. Trump made the payments and hid them to avoid campaign finance regulations. That's hardly something "the masses" do.

Anyone ever before see conviction & prison from that?
And it pales in comparison to Clinton's aforementioned
crimes....& Obama's selling of pardons too.
Why is Trump the only one to be prosecuted?
Politics is the best explanation.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Edwards case shows that the Trump case isn't anything unusual....

What's unusual is that Presidents have traditionally
been above the law for such crimes. John Edwards
was never one of the big fish. The little people are
always subject to prosecution for such crimes &
even far far less.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, they are (DC and Georgia).

I hope so.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not aware of Clinton's crimes except lying to congress about a blow job. And a civil rape case. How does that register as less than Clinton's crimes?

Lying during such testimony, & suborning perjury are crimes.
The subject being sex (more than a BJ) doesn't make it legal.
And there is the selling of pardons. (Marc Rich ring a bell?)

I'm disgusted that so many Presidents can commit crimes,
& get away without ever being charged. Prosecution
shouldn't be limited to Trump.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

'does' or 'should' or...

Laws are not applied evenly. They are sometimes not applied at all.

While that may be true, do think that is how it should be? How effective do you think law would be if application of them was totally random?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are lamenting over spilled milk. Spilled 24 years ago.

Missing the point, ie, that politics rather than justice
is motivating prosecution now. Moreover, Obama's
& Holder's selling of pardons is more recent.

 

[Revoltingest]

The hush money was paid when he was running for President since he was afraid that the story would harm his chances of winning. Not reproting it as a campaign expense, which it rather clearly was, he broke the law.

Answered in other posts.

It's amazing how Democrat Presidents are defended
against all prosecution, but only Bush & Trump are the
ones they continually call to prosecute.
It all stinks to high Heaven of partisan vengeance, when
it really should be about prosecuting everyone who
commits such a range of crimes.

 

[Father Heathen]

And you the proud owner of a Stormy Daniels doll?

Nah, I'm don't worship celebrities, politicians, etc. That's wierd.

 

[Colt]

I want to believe that prosecuting Trump is the beginning
of a trend to hold the high & mighty accountable.
But my expectations are low because it seems more
about outrage than a general pursuit of justice.'
Just watch....if/when Trump is arrested, he won't be
cuffed. And he'll be told of it ahead of time.

Lets see, Porn actress Stormy Daniels purportedly met with Trump 3 times and had sex once. It was consensual. She wanted to be on the Apprentice but that never happened. She tried to sell her story for $15,000 dollars but after purported threats decided not to. Then she denied that she had sex with Trump. When Trump ran for office the issue resurfaced. Her attorney and Trumps agreed on a payment of $150,000 for not disclosing the claim.

Trump paid the money himself from his home equity through some shell company and his lawyer. Apparently the crime was not disclosing it.

The soft on crime DA in NY city is pushing the issue! Its been controversial in his own office!

America will never return from this!

 

[Colt]

Nah, I'm don't worship celebrities, politicians, etc. That's wierd.

What crimes could the government prosecute you for?

 

[Father Heathen]

What crimes could the government prosecute you for?

Nothing. Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

Lets see, Porn actress Stormy Daniels purportedly met with Trump 3 times and had sex once. It was consensual. She wanted to be on the Apprentice but that never happened. She tried to sell her story for $15,000 dollars but after purported threats decided not to. Then she denied that she had sex with Trump. When Trump ran for office the issue resurfaced. Her attorney and Trumps agreed on a payment of $150,000 for not disclosing the claim.

Trump paid the money himself from his home equity through some shell company and his lawyer. Apparently the crime was not disclosing it.

The soft on crime DA in NY city is pushing the issue! Its been controversial in his own office!

America will never return from this!

"Soft on crime"
It's indicated by the rarity of prosecuting politicians for crimes.
And the previous total lack of prosecuting any President.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As much as I'd like to see Trump charged, tried, convicted, & sentenced
to prison, this all strikes me as pure politics. They're going after him for
paying hush money. Not even clear what the crime is. They should be
going after him for insurrection.
But Clinton wasn't prosecuted for certain perjury to a grand jury, &
suborning perjury. Let's go after both...send a message to these scoundrels.

And Bush and Cheney were not and will not be prosecuted for war crimes and misleading the public.

The fact that Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush exist is a blot on the American justice system. Every single one of the three deserves to be charged.

^ this

Sadly, the unintended consequences over the next eighteen months are unlikely to accrue to the benefit of democracy and human rights.

 

[Stevicus]

Answered in other posts.

It's amazing how Democrat Presidents are defended
against all prosecution, but only Bush & Trump are the
ones they continually call to prosecute.
It all stinks to high Heaven of partisan vengeance, when
it really should be about prosecuting everyone who
commits such a range of crimes.

Reagan and Nixon got away with their crimes. The Democrats have generally been way too soft on the Republicans - except for Trump, for whatever reason. They were way, waaaay too soft on Bush. With the WMD mendacity, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo, they could have thrown the book at him and thrown away the key.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

While that may be true, do think that is how it should be?

I'd like laws to be applied even handedly, and with some degree of consistency. Indeed, that's what I'm arguing for.

How effective do you think law would be if application of them was totally random?

I'm not sure how you would get even a hint of that from my post, so I'm perhaps misunderstanding. Random or biased applications of the law are contrary to my preference, and what I think is effective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd like laws to be applied even handedly, and with some degree of consistency. Indeed, that's what I'm arguing for.



I'm not sure how you would get even a hint of that from my post, so I'm perhaps misunderstanding. Random or biased applications of the law are contrary to my preference, and what I think is effective.

Opinion | Trump Seems to Be the Victim of a Witch Hunt. So What?

It’s hard to believe prosecutors would bring this case against anyone else. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

www.politico.com

You might like this one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reagan and Nixon got away with their crimes. The Democrats have generally been way too soft on the Republicans - except for Trump, for whatever reason. They were way, waaaay too soft on Bush. With the WMD mendacity, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo, they could have thrown the book at him and thrown away the key.

Don't forget that torture occurred under
Democrats too, eg, Johnson, Obama, Kennedy.
Why prosecute only Republicans?
This is telling.

 

[Colt]

"Soft on crime"
It's indicated by the rarity of prosecuting politicians for crimes.
And the previous total lack of prosecuting any President.

Do you really want politically motivated prosecutions of former presidents or any politicians for trivial offences?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you really want politically motivated prosecutions of former presidents or any politicians for trivial offences?

Do you think that's what I advocate?
"Trivial" opens up arguing about what is, & what isn't.
Let's just say that serious crimes, eg, perjury, suborning
perjury, selling pardons, assault, insurrection, etc
should be prosecuted at all levels without exception.

Note:
Perjured testimony immaterial to the issue
at hand is typically not subject to prosecution.