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?
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.
Is this just an act? Your opinions are generally the opposite of objective reality. Getting publicly accused of crimes and having to spend time and money in court are real harms.
Is this just an act? Your opinions are generally the opposite of objective reality. Getting publicly accused of crimes and having to spend time and money in court are real harms.
So if trump ends up winning on appeal you are going to claim democrats in new York abused the system against him, and are morally disgusting people undeserving of ever again holding public office?
Or it only works against republicans prosecuting democrats having to defend themselves and winning?
In this forum people were cheering at the mounting legal expenses paid by Trump, which came from political donations reducing the amount of money he has to spend for his campaign.
You're stating that attempting to bring federal prosecutions without probable cause is fine as long as the prosecutions aren't successful. That is a direct violation of the constitution that you hold so dear.
And the people cheering about mounting expenses absolutely believe that there is probable cause (and likely guilt) behind the attempted prosecutions. That is a very different situation than being ok with baseless cases being brought provided they don't succeed.
You're stating that attempting to bring federal prosecutions without probable cause is fine as long as the prosecutions aren't successful. That is a direct violation of the constitution that you hold so dear.
Which part?
I said I think many attempts would stop at the grand jury level (which afaik also means very little legal expenses for the accused, if any)
Let me be clear about this, with another example.
As I previously stated, the Obama admin broke precedent and illegally used the IRS against hundreds of rightwing NGOs attempting to destroy them by litigating their tax exempt status under false pretenses.
An incredibly violent use of executive power , a threat to democracy according to some people in this forum.
What happened is those NGOs got compensated very well for having being illegally targeted like that.
So the country is stronger today. A banana republic GOP admin will think twice about illegally using the IRS like democrats did, because they really don't want leftwing NGOs to be awash in cash from settlements.
Which part?
I said I think many attempts would stop at the grand jury level (which afaik also means very little legal expenses for the accused, if any)
The Fourth Amendment covers malicious prosecution. From a 2022 decision:
[QUOTE=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-659/]the gravamen of the Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution, as this Court has recognized it, is the wrongful initiation of charges without probable cause. [/QUOTE]
You really have to explain what you think will happen if Trump wins on appeal, because it sounds like you think an appellate court will exonerate him.
So if trump ends up winning on appeal you are going to claim democrats in new York abused the system against him, and are morally disgusting people undeserving of ever again holding public office?
What? No, that's quite a leap. Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean the charges weren't worthwhile to bring or that the prosecution is morally disgusting. But it doesn't mean it was harmless to the defendant either.
Facts. Ultimately, humans evaluating facts have to be how we determine if it's malicious or legitimate prosecution, and humans have biases. But most of us are able to rationally evaluate facts. I doubt it would be to your satisfaction, but you hold beliefs about governments that the vast majority of people don't.
So if trump ends up winning on appeal you are going to claim democrats in new York abused the system against him, and are morally disgusting people undeserving of ever again holding public office?
Or it only works against republicans prosecuting democrats having to defend themselves and winning?
In a system that is functioning properly, some people are going to be acquitted at trial (or prevail on appeal) even though there was a good faith basis for indicting the person in the first place. You are advocating for the position that baseless criminal accusations are a net positive so long as the person isn't falsely convicted, which is ridiculous and very different.
Let me be clear about this, with another example.
As I previously stated, the Obama admin broke precedent and illegally used the IRS against hundreds of rightwing NGOs attempting to destroy them by litigating their tax exempt status under false pretenses.
An incredibly violent use of executive power , a threat to democracy according to some people in this forum.
What happened is those NGOs got compensated very well for having being illegally t
It's a great point, the only thing missing is actual evidence that the IRS was acting at the behest of anyone in the Obama administration outside of the IRS itself. Years of investigations and no evidence was ever found.
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
Bannon would already be in prison except that Trump pardoned him for running a scam fund raising operation.
Because pretty soon it's going to be the committee to investigate the committee that investigated the committee to investigate the committee, and congress won't have time to do anything else.
I understand you think that would be a good thing, but most people don't.
In this forum people were cheering at the mounting legal expenses paid by Trump, which came from political donations reducing the amount of money he has to spend for his campaign.
It's amazing that he is allowed to use campaigns donations for his personal legal expenses. Seems like that should be against the law, but I suppose it isn't. Something else that means a law should be changed because Trump took advantage of something no one else thought would ever be necessary to prohibit.
It's amazing that he is allowed to use campaigns donations for his personal legal expenses. Seems like that should be against the law, but I suppose it isn't. Something else that means a law should be changed because Trump took advantage of something no one else thought would ever be necessary to prohibit.
lol at the bold
imagine thinking Trump is the first person to use campaign donations for personal legal expenses
Facts. Ultimately, humans evaluating facts have to be how we determine if it's malicious or legitimate prosecution, and humans have biases. But most of us are able to rationally evaluate facts.
And the facts show that a hyper partisan house filled with some of the dumbest people in politics was not able to even impeach Biden. That’s a far cry from an officer of the court bringing charges. Doing that frivolously or corruptly can cost you your job, every dollar you have and potentially your freedom.
Perhaps instead of laughing you should actually read what you posted and try to understand how it differs from what Trump has done. Clinton set up an explicit legal defense fund and accepted donations with explicit disclosure up front that the funds would be used for that purpose. In contrast, Trump used general campaign donations for his legal defense without prior disclosure.
Even for lucario this is ****ing embarrassing
It’s utterly exhausting to me how none of MAGA thirst traps have no desire or ability to defend trump in a vacuum; it’s all ‘well the left did _______ so how dare you.’ I have a longer post in mind for the literal psychosis required for being a trump supporter but what’s the point, ya’ll are weapons grade shitbag humans
Perhaps instead of laughing you should actually read what you posted and try to understand how it differs from what Trump has done. Clinton set up an explicit legal defense fund and accepted donations with explicit disclosure up front that the funds would be used for that purpose. In contrast, Trump used general campaign donations for his legal defense without prior disclosure.
Because that was before citizen united.
Trump isn't using his campaign money for legal expenses, he is using PAC money
It’s utterly exhausting to me how none of MAGA thirst traps have no desire or ability to defend trump in a vacuum; it’s all ‘well the left did _______ so how dare you.’ I have a longer post in mind for the literal psychosis required for being a trump supporter but what’s the point, ya’ll are weapons grade shitbag humans
Guy with extreme TDS, spewing hatred and insults, accuses others of psychosis. Lol
.
this is what he really wants - what he dreams of every night -
.
.
.
