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?
You’re allowed to lie about where your campaign money comes from and goes, and then you’re allowed to pay people to cover that up?
Sounds illegal to me.
But he wasn't charged with hiding where his campaign money came from, he was charged with falsifying a business record to cover up a crime which happened to be an unnamed and unproven "crime". And people like yourself were ready to throw him away for life? For what?
I was ready to "throw him away" a long time ago...around 2020 when he got killed by Biden in the election. But like gum on your shoe, he won't go away. I doubt he will do any jail time for his 34 felonies but let's hope I am as wrong as you normally are when predicting the future.
But he wasn't charged with hiding where his campaign money came from, he was charged with falsifying a business record to cover up a crime which happened to be an unnamed and unproven "crime". And people like yourself were ready to throw him away for life? For what?
What business record? Paying off a porn star with election money isn’t a business expense.
I’m ready to throw him away for the two Americans he murdered during his presidency. Same with Obama
3 months in jail for this one seems fine
But he wasn't charged with hiding where his campaign money came from, he was charged with falsifying a business record to cover up a crime which happened to be an unnamed and unproven "crime". And people like yourself were ready to throw him away for life? For what?
cite or ban ?
who ever made the claim that trump deserve life for that particular illegal act he got condemn?
actually he got very lucky to just get caught with that one....
ps: fwiw the far right complain many states do not prosecute people that do petty theft in retail stores or w.e but if one of their "leaders" make one for couple hundred thousand $ its ok ?
NY 175.10, 34 times.
He is literally and demonstrably a con. There is only one way to become one, and he did it.
Highly unlikely. His numbers don't look good and are heavily trending in the wrong direction.
I just don't want you to get too upset when it happens but I'll be here to help get you and others through a rough and scary time for you just don't worry you'll be ok I can assure you.
If he wins, we'll handle it a heck of a lot better than you will handle it if he doesn't. Which is FAR more likely.
I will admit that I haven't paid much attention to our former presidents after leaving office but other than selling a memoire or building a library, I don't recall a single one of the fund raising for legal fees or trying to sell bibles, tennis shoes or NFTs of them dressed like superman. I don't recall much after their presidencies other than non profit or humanitarian work.
Trump just sees his marks to sell to. He is a con man, pure and simple.
And it's nothing new. From the beginning when he was slapping his name on nyc buildings to his "university" he is a simple huckster salesman that only the stupid believe he is some great businessman or leader.
Btw the 34 counts thing, while technically true, is one of the many weird, bizarre, incomprehensible -from-outside events of the whole thing.
It's like if you rob a bank and within it 98 safe deposit boxes, you got charged with "99 counts of theft" lol.
Again it's all technically true but when used to claim multiple crimes have been committed, in the sense normal people intend the use of the word crime, it's bad faith
Decent NYT primer on Trump policy intentions (limited to the use of executive power).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024...
Although some of the listed ideas aren't actually from Trump, in general it gives a decent idea of what he would actually try to do if he wins.
Hard as usual for me to read such a list because I 95-100% agree with some of that and 95-100% disagree with some as well
Btw the 34 counts thing, while technically true, is one of the many weird, bizarre, incomprehensible -from-outside events of the whole thing.
It's like if you rob a bank and within it 98 safe deposit boxes, you got charged with "99 counts of theft" lol.
Again it's all technically true but when used to claim multiple crimes have been committed, in the sense normal people intend the use of the word crime, it's bad faith
Why don't we let this guy explain it?
What's the difference between writing 5 checks for 200 dollars each and writing one check for 1000 dollars? Same crime, same amount, different possible sentences. Up to 5x in this hypothetical.
If you commit a crime once and that's all we have on you, of modest gravity, you could still be a decent person who slipped in life.
If you commit 5 crimes of modest gravity in 5 different occasions over some span of time, that's your way of life, we have elements to consider you exceptionally worse for society than the other person.
Sounds it's like it's because Trump is exceptionally worse for society having done it 34 times.
Why don't we let this guy explain it?
Sounds it's like it's because Trump is exceptionally worse for society having done it 34 times.
It's 5 checks TO FIVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE ROFLMAO.
I wrote VERY PRECISELY *different occasions across spans of time*.
If you write 5 checks to the same person at the same time or one it's the same jfc.
34 different cases of falsification of business record to cover 34 different crimes across the years would indeed be infinitely worse for society than writing 34 different lines once for a specific thing
Once is chance, twice is coincidence, third time's a pattern
Trump demands prosecutions for Cheney, Jan. 6 committee members
There’s no longer any question about whether Donald Trump
would seek prosecutions against his perceived political enemies.
The question, rather, is who he’d go after first.
“It is a Total and Complete American Tragedy that the Crooked Joe Biden
Department of Injustice is so desperate to jail Steve Bannon, and every other Republican,
for that matter, for not SUBMITTING to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, made up of all Democrats,
and two CRAZED FORMER REPUBLICAN LUNATICS, Cryin’ Adam Kinzinger, and Liz ‘Out of Her Mind’ Cheney,”
“INDICT THE UNSELECT J6 COMMITTEE FOR ILLEGALLY DELETING AND DESTROYING ALL OF THEIR ‘FINDINGS!’”
he appears quite serious about wanting to prosecute the
bipartisan group of lawmakers who investigated the Jan. 6 attack
Yes and what would the problem be?
If the prosecution is baseless, the grand jury wouldn't indict.
If the grand jury indicts and the prosecution can't make the case well enough at trial, the jury will deliver a not guilty verdict.
What's the problem with candidates for office campaigning on using their executive power in a way they consider proper, given it's lawful to direct the DoJ toward whatever matter you think is worth a DoJ investigation?
Don't you trust the judicial system?
Trump demands prosecutions for Cheney, Jan. 6 committee members
There’s no longer any question about whether Donald Trump
would seek prosecutions against his perceived political enemies.
The question, rather, is who he’d go after first.
“It is a Total and Complete American Tragedy that the Crooked Joe Biden
Department of Injustice is so desperate to jail Steve Bannon, and every other Republican,
for that matter, for not SUBMITTING to the Unsel
Why wouldn't he when
Alvin Bragg campaigned on the fact he would get Trump as did Fanni Willis
I don't know what this comment means. During a criminal trial, an ex-president should be held to the same standard as anyone else.
If I were a prosecutor, I would need to be extremely certain of a conviction in order to seek an indictment of an ex-president, more certain than I would need to be to seek an indictment a regular person.
That isn't fair, but there are a lot of negative repercussions associated with indicting an ex-president and failing to get a conviction.
Yes and what would the problem be?
If the prosecution is baseless, the grand jury wouldn't indict.
If the grand jury indicts and the prosecution can't make the case well enough at trial, the jury will deliver a not guilty verdict.
What's the problem with candidates for office campaigning on using their executive power in a way they consider proper, given it's lawful to direct the DoJ toward whatever matter you think is worth a DoJ investigatio
This isn't the clever criticism you think it is, but in any event, if I had served on the Jan. 6 commission, I would have zero concern about criminal liability.
Highly unlikely. His numbers don't look good and are heavily trending in the wrong direction.
His numbers look fine at this stage. Most polls show both candidates in the low 40s so it’s kinda hard to tell who’s really ahead. Like if the 20% not picking Trump or Biden is primarily white non college educated Trump is really up a lot. If they are mostly minority, women or college educated Biden is really up. Unfortunately it’s hard to get that data.
Threatening people with baseless criminal prosecutions is a problem, and a potential deterrent to efforts to hold politicians accountable, even if the chances of an indictment are slim and the chances of a conviction are vanishingly slim.
Do you honestly believe that it is "no harm, no foul" so long as the target ultimately avoids a criminal conviction?
Threatening people with baseless criminal prosecutions is a problem, and a potential deterrent to efforts to hold politicians accountable, even if the chances of an indictment are slim and the chances of a conviction are vanishingly slim.
Do you honestly believe that it is "no harm, no foul" so long as the target ultimately avoids a criminal conviction?
As long as the procedures are all followed according to the law (and so ultimately the constitution), especially if after several attempts grand juries keep denying indictments, I think it actually strengthens the country.
Imagine having repeated proof, over and over, that the system is built so well it can easily repeal attempts of perceived abuses.
That would increase people trust in the system, decrease irrational fear of disastrous outcomes "if you vote the wrong person" and so on.
And if at some point some parts of the system look weak to some angle of abuse, you can change them. Like the Senate clarified procedures to count presidential electoral votes.
There are countries where attempted prosecution is a weapon that can damage people enormously even if they are innocent (like Italy). I don't think the USA is one of them especially if we talk about politicians with a well funded party machine and plenty of good lawyers ready to work for their defense.
Like in Italy less than a month ago the president of the Liguria (Genoa) region was arrested and handcuffed deep in the night in a hotel room with accusations of various illegal schemes to steal public money.
It later came out one reason for that was a phone conversation with a construction company where the president talking to a constructor company CEO said "I want to deal in licit acts", when commenting some contracts using European money to build some stuff in his region, and the prosecution had heard "illicit" lol.
Ofc the judiciary in Italy is extremely leftwing and the president is rightwing and there were upcoming elections so it's business as usual for us.
The USA isn't like that (I think)
Like in Italy less than a month ago the president of the Liguria (Genoa) region was arrested and handcuffed deep in the night in a hotel room with accusations of various illegal schemes to steal public money.
It later came out one reason for that was a phone conversation with a construction company where the president talking to a constructor company CEO said "I want to deal in licit acts", when commenting some contracts using European money
They were speaking in English?
Same word in Italian: lecito/illecito
