ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
There is no racially targeted excess of police violence; there is no disproportional incarceration taking into account the actual crime rate.
Those people are lied to by top democrat politicians and because of those lies, they go and burn building and destroy neighborhoods and sometimes also kill people.
That is, if lies by politicians are considered causally for behavior (which I don't think is correct)
Wow, just wow.
If a president can pardon himself would mean a president would have full immunity and no law to abide too.
He could kill someone ( hire a hit man or w.e) and pardon himself immediately ?
I doubt it can do it .
I mean, it seems crazy but that’s basically what he’s arguing, and that’s when he’s not the Pres anymore.
If I recall ole Bob Mueller correctly, it’a pretty much settled that the federal gov literally can’t charge a sitting President with a crime. So if he gets back in there, you can bet you he’ll at least try.
prosecution is never impartial. the goal of prosecution is to prosecute people for as much as you can get them for and nothing less. this idea that someone a prosecutor hired is an "independent" or "impartial" is a farce. a DA wants people convicted, they would hire the people they think best can convict them.. to my knowledge he's also only one of three that were hired.
regardless of her poor choice, it should have little effect on the
Well I guess we disagree on the role and responsibility of a prosecutor- strike firm blows but fair ones, seek justice not convictions, exoneration of the innocent as important as conviction of the guilty, etc etc and all that jazz.
But putting all that aside - this particular DA chose herself to appoint these people, and there is evidently a rule on the books that you can’t put someone in there that could benefit you financially. So if they violated that, then they are disqualified from the case. Not sure if that would mean the entire thing gets thrown out, but it definitely ain’t a good look when 90% of Trumps defense is witch hunt and corruption.
Well I guess we disagree on the role and responsibility of a prosecutor- strike firm blows but fair ones, seek justice not convictions, exoneration of the innocent as important as conviction of the guilty, etc etc and all that jazz.
But putting all that aside - this particular DA chose herself to appoint these people, and there is evidently a rule on the books that you can’t put someone in there that could benefit you financially. So if the
we disagree on the reality of a prosecutor. i've been one. it isn't like that.
hiring a friend/lover whatever might be a misuse of public funds. but it certainly doesn't effect the case at all.
I mean, it seems crazy but that’s basically what he’s arguing, and that’s when he’s not the Pres anymore.
If I recall ole Bob Mueller correctly, it’a pretty much settled that the federal gov literally can’t charge a sitting President with a crime. So if he gets back in there, you can bet you he’ll at least try.
I agree 100% and yes he will try but there is no way in my mind it will pass because of the stuff u and I brought up.
The president is suppose to safeguard and abide to the constitution not too overpass it by being full immune from it .
There is no racially targeted excess of police violence; there is no disproportional incarceration taking into account the actual crime rate.
Those people are lied to by top democrat politicians and because of those lies, they go and burn building and destroy neighborhoods and sometimes also kill people.
That is, if lies by politicians are considered causally for behavior (which I don't think is correct)
What lies do you think top democrats told people which caused them to riot?
we disagree on the reality of a prosecutor. i've been one. it isn't like that.
hiring a friend/lover whatever might be a misuse of public funds. but it certainly doesn't effect the case at all.
I don't understand the details of this crap, but it still seems like it would be better just to have someone else prosecute. Would that take a lot longer, or cause other problems?
There is no racially targeted excess of police violence; there is no disproportional incarceration taking into account the actual crime rate.
Those people are lied to by top democrat politicians and because of those lies, they go and burn building and destroy neighborhoods and sometimes also kill people.
That is, if lies by politicians are considered causally for behavior (which I don't think is correct)
White people commit the most crimes via speeding and wage theft. Police commit more larceny that criminals do dollar for dollar when comparing crime and civil forfeiture
Do you need cites?
I don't understand the details of this crap, but it still seems like it would be better just to have someone else prosecute. Would that take a lot longer, or cause other problems?
i haven't been following it super closely, but to my knowledge this guy is only 1 of 3 hired to do the prosecution. so one would think the delay wouldn't be significant. it's certainly not worth dismissing the indictment which is what the defense is arguing.
eta- i also still don't see any potential "conflict" that the rightwing media keeps talking about. like if im a general contractor and i hire my nephew as a subcontractor that may be shady but we wouldn't have a conflict of interest in building the same house.
Do you realize that in theory, people who already had an opinion about trump shouldn't have been allowed to be part of a jury judging trump right?
Ofc you can't find 9 people who never heard of him so there is no solution but keep in mind that
Which theory is that?
Whoops... I guess it's not a legal theory.
Kevin f spacey!
well hes a baddie, he drugged and raped minor teen actors, right?
wheras trump is at worst a fumbler.
Is grabbing chicks by the pussy the definition of fumbling? Most people would call it a definition of sexual assault.
did he really get a lady killed though?
he said protest peacefully and they did.
until they broke the glass to that door but they didnt have to shoot her for that.
They peacefully protested until they didn't? What...? Yeah, and the person who murdered those kids in Idaho wasn't a murderer... until he started murdering people. The former doesn't excuse the latter.
When things turned hairy, which was pretty quickly, he could have just tweeted for everyone to leave the Capitol Building and the cult would have taken his orders, so yeah, it seems he has some culpability in the court of public opinion and if had a soul of any kind, he'd feel shitty about it for the rest of his life.
why did they shoot her? is the cop still on duty? he would get convicted for manslaughter in europe.
he did not have to shoot her, she was unarmed.
She was armed with a mob of lunatics with poles, helmets, etc. If one gets through and you don't pop him or her, they'll swarm like bees and a dangerous situation will arise.
What you have to understand is that those dudes are armed and there to protect members of Congress after other security layers have been breached. They are the last layer of security and the most protective.
Basically, if the two choices are: 1) let you a ascend toward personal security with a 0.0001% chance of a Congressperson getting harmed, or 2) shooting you with a 0% chance of a Congressperson getting harmed, then you're eating lead 100% of the time.
Any rational person understands this. Any rational person would have known that the line was drawn in the sand with that barricade at the doors of the House Chambers and that nothing good was going to happen on the other side.
tl;dr - natural selection is still a thing.
When things turned hairy, which was pretty quickly, he could have just tweeted for everyone to leave the Capitol Building and the cult would have taken his orders, so yeah, it seems he has some culpability in the court of public opinion and if had a soul of any kind, he'd feel shitty about it for the rest of his life.
these were the tweets (time is UTC, so -5 for washinton DC time)
this was the timeline of the events
She was armed with a mob of lunatics with poles, helmets, etc. If one gets through and you don't pop him or her, they'll swarm like bees and a dangerous situation will arise.
What you have to understand is that those dudes are armed and there to protect members of Congress after other security layers have been breached. They are the last layer of security and the most protective.
Basically, if the two choices are: 1) let you a ascend toward
they should have started shooting far sooner
we disagree on the reality of a prosecutor. i've been one. it isn't like that.
hiring a friend/lover whatever might be a misuse of public funds. but it certainly doesn't effect the case at all.
I don’t think there’s a conflict in the sense of - these two people have different goals and aims they are pursuing.
The conflict is:
-As you’ve identified, hiring someone who pays for your dates is a kickback and an on paper violation of the rules of appointing an independent counsel. The DA knows this, otherwise they wouldn’t have this “I paid him back for everything in cash” explanation. You might not feel like this is a big deal or that the amount is insignificant, but it’s exactly the kind of thing a pissed off judge would use to kick the guy off the case to punish the DA for being an idiot without making some more significant finding.
-The DA chose to appoint supposedly independent people so that she could take a position that any charges and actions were not directed by her and her possible biases. “I’m not doing this for my career, I’m not doing this to secure votes or punish political rivals, I’m just doing the right thing”. She didn’t have to do this. The NYC DA has never done this in any of their Trump investigations. If you’re going to pick an outside person to avoid the appearance of any influence or bias, don’t pick someone you’re in a romantic relationship with where it could be argued you’re still telling him what to do or he’s doing things to protect and promote you instead of “what’s right”.
It does hurt the case. It’s a sideshow, it gives support to the defendants “I’m a conspiracy victim” defense, it delays everything, it gives the defense something to point to when they make the inevitable discovery/misconduct argument- they lied before, your honor, how can you trust them now??
Anyways, I feel like you’re most focused on the practical consequences, so the bottom line is that this is a major black eye and a definite delay that was entirely avoidable.
Fanni is getting tossed with her whole team . Chances are she is going to face an ethics review with the bar and possibly criminal charges from the state .
She is a terrible witness and should have taken the legal advice given not to show up
it's funny because literally everyone in the legal twitter bubble im in said the exact opposite of this.
Im not on twitter I was talking more what the channels are reporting. I did not find her a strong witness and her cash explanation makes made me wonder if she was on the take as well 😀
i dont personally care if they ask her to step away or whatever. but it's obvious that there is no conflict with the case and her alleged relationship with 1 of the 3 prosecutors. this is a hail mary to try and get in a neighboring republican DA or something like that who will throw out the case as a political favor which actually IS THE CONFLICT. trump's attorneys are trying to get to a conflict rather than avoid one.
these were the tweets (time is UTC, so -5 for washinton DC time)
this was the timeline of the events
Maybe you should read the part where it took a half hour for him to tweet to remain peaceful [sic] after being informed the Capitol was under attack and how that tweet came 15 minutes after his first tweet about how Pence is a traitor and the USA needs truth?
Or how it took 3 hours, after several interventions by his daughter and other senior staff, for him to finally make the tweet he should have made right at the beginning?
“I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order.”
Kind of shameful what you're doing here with your disingenuous gaslighting.
Maybe you should read the part where it took a half hour for him to tweet to remain peaceful [sic] after being informed the Capitol was under attack and how that tweet came 15 minutes after his first tweet about how Pence is a traitor and the USA needs truth?
Or how it took 3 hours, after several interventions by his daughter and other senior staff, for him to finally make the tweet he should have made right at the beginning?
“I know your pai
It may deplorable but is it criminal?
