Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

The amount of criminality engaged in by Trump is sweeping and staggering.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/...me=STYLN_elevate_series_collections&template=

 

Of course I did, many of them. That you don't want to recognize these as crimes is inconsequential, they are all crimes nonetheless.

The only thing that prevents Trump from looking like a criminal is that he's not behind bars. He has committed numerous crimes but under our Constitution and the rule of law he still has to be prosecuted and found guilty by a valid court of law before he can be recognized as a criminal. Hitler was never prosecuted either, does that mean he never committed any crimes and is not a criminal?

"Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

And that in itself is a crime against the Constitution. So you've already contradicted yourself.

Evil is not the lesser of evils, it's evil, plain and simple.

 

Again, you have not been able to make that case. Going full hitler only reveals a position based on emotion, not fact. Both parties have their own brand of abuse of power. Their power comes from taxes and on that issue, Trump is the lesser of evils.

 

I'm not interested in making any case for you, it isn't my job to convince you of anything. In the words of the mass murdering criminal-in-chief, it is what it is. I stand by what I post, which I post for the record and/or for the purpose of discussion. I think this particular discussion with you is over though, I'm not interested in going around in circles.

 

What crimes did Hillary commit, worthy of incarceration?

 

In point of fact, I most certainly didn't. You under that 'everyone commits felonies' delusion.

 

Whose shouting 'crimes against humanity'? Not SDNY, not Moi.

Ahh, you're thinking some other members on this forum, but they don't count, only SDNY (or other US Atty's office) and DOJ count.

 

Well, hold it right there, GrayMan. No point in addressing the rest of your post, given the egregiousness of your assertion, which I gotta deal with immediately.

You are embarrassing yourself, you have just revealed your ignorance of civics 101.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/parliamentary-oversight/unitedstates.php

Congressional oversight of the executive branch has existed since the earliest days of the United States Congress. Major processes related to congressional oversight include the investigative, impeachment, confirmation, appropriations, authorization, and budget processes.

And here is the ****ing CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT MANUAL

https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2015102393.xhtml

You simply have to up your game if you want to be taken seriously.

 

For you to make a case, you would have to show that Republicans had a significantly higher rate of infection, or that those who hate him and call him a liar trusted him on this one issue.

 

You think Trump would let Pence be president for a month? 3 days, tops.

Trump is NOT going to step down, that would be seen as 'quitting' too Nixon-esque, no, he's going to try and pardon himself, which I doubt will withstand SCOTUS if it is challenged, and it will be challenged if he tries it.

 

She used and installed a server not certified for classified information. The server was located in an non-secure location to receive, transmit and receive extremely classified information I would be in prison for doing that.

 

I am not in the "lock her up" or the "lock him up" crowd. Im on the side that opposes using our legal system as a political weapon.

 

If it were only 'abuse of power' I wouldn't be arguing for Trump's prosecution as I don't think that is a violation of criminal codes, per se.. I find a more compelling case for corruption both during his term and outside of it leading up to his term. Toss in Obstruction Of Justice, a stand alone crime, witness intimidation/tampering, bank fraud, tax fraud, campaign finance fraud ( that one's a slam dunk ) AND Abuse of power ( which is, again, probably not a crime, but will add to the portrait of his character ) and the mosaic completed makes a good case for it, I think.

this NYtimes article ( noting the 45 minute audio version link in the middle of the article ) goes into this in very good detail.

You might find it interesting

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/magazine/trump-investigations-criminal-prosecutions.html

 

No prosecutor would ever take the case. Primarily because it had not been demonstrated that anyone was harmed. Moreover, only 3 emails were recovered that were determined to be 'classified' ( the '100' Comey referred to were not marked as classified, so those were FBI's 'opinion' ). A prosecutor looking at the strength of the case, noting these facts, would realize a high powered defense attorney would rip the Prosecution's case to shreds, plus the fact that when you prosecute someone famous, like the former secretary of state, the former first lady, well, there's an appropo saying, 'when you shoot an arrow at the Queen, you'd better not miss' (not implying she's a 'queen' but she is a big target ).

On top this this, it's only a single item. To prosecute someone of Hillary's stature, you'll need a whole sheet of allegations and some slam dunks on at least a few of them.

This simply does not rise to that level. If a prosecutor prosecutes and doesn't succeed in a conviction, his reputation will suffer, see? The stakes are too high.

Now, with Trump, we gotta whole crap load of things to prosecute him for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/magazine/trump-investigations-criminal-prosecutions.html

If YOU were prosecuted for the same thing, what does a prosecutor have to lose? Not a ******n thing, so politics DOES enter into the picture, rightfully or wrongfully, and that's life.

 

That is a not a criteria in the law. You only have to violate the law. The law does not require that any harm took place. However, the FBI concluded that the accounts were most likely hacked.

The FBI IG investigated and wrote the report. Comey said she was "Grossly Negligent" which would have made it a felony. Strzok changed it to "Extremely Careless".

 

I gave other reasons why no prosecutor would take such a case.

No prosecutor would ever take the case. Primarily because it had not been demonstrated that anyone was harmed. Moreover, only 3 emails were recovered that were determined to be 'classified' ( the '100' Comey referred to were not marked as classified, so those were FBI's 'opinion' ). A prosecutor looking at the strength of the case, noting these facts, would realize a high powered defense attorney would rip the Prosecution's case to shreds, plus the fact that when you prosecute someone famous, like the former secretary of state, the former first lady, well, there's an appropo saying, 'when you shoot an arrow at the Queen, you'd better not miss' (not implying she's a 'queen' but she is a big target ).

On top this this, it's only a single item. To prosecute someone of Hillary's stature, you'll need a whole sheet of allegations and some slam dunks on at least a few of them.

This simply does not rise to that level. If a prosecutor prosecutes and doesn't succeed in a conviction, his reputation will suffer, see? The stakes are too high.

 

The bases for your argument is emotional and heavily fueled by bias. I included Hillary show extremists are on both sides. When one side loses, they resort to dirty tricks. Getting a BJ is not a crime, but the investigation created one. Was Bill's impeachment done in the interest of justice and the American people? Do those who want Hillary locked up really care about justice or just revenge.

I don't want to be another country where losing political power is a prison/death sentence.

 

if that is what it is, I agree, but if it's a matter of justice, then it's in another ballpark altogether.

 

I beg to differ, they are motivated by on the books crimes, and justice.

We can't have a president thumbing his nose at the law, having done it in and out of office.

No prior president excluding Nixon's crimes, including 'Hillary's server" rose to the level so egregious that prosecution is warranted.

Trump is the singular exception.

 

I am not defending Trump and have no illusions of him being honest or responsible with my hard earned money. If you want to consider him a criminal, you would have to consider all of them criminals.

 

You were not .. but the post which you responded to was responding to someone making that claim. - that was the whole convo - the other poster even posting the Neuremburg laws or some such thing. I agreed that Trump was involved - by his office - in some of these war crime and humanity issues - .. but this was mostly after the fact .. stuff he mostly inherited from Obama .. Syria and Yemen being the two examples proffered.

 

No, I do not consider Bill's and 'Hillary's 'crimes' rise to a level of prosecution. Bill's is too far in the past, and what was the crime 'lying to congress"? no way are you going to put an ex president in jail for that one, maybe a public rebuke or a fine, a sanction or something like that, and with Hillary, it's similar, as the case is only about the server, and the case isn't strong enough to withstand what a high powered defense attorney would do, ie.., rip the prosecution case to shreds. Moreover, how are you going to persuade a jury to lock up hillary on such a singular charge? No one was hurt. The best, methinks, is some kind of sanction, public rebuke, a fine, perhaps, tops.

Trump, on the other hand, does offer prosecutors a ton more to work with crimes before and during his presidency, and they are pretty big crimes, in my book. I really think he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. He's been thumbing his nose at the law for a long time.

 

I would agree with you if the conversation was 'crimes against humanity'. There might be a case insofar as incompetence in the mishandling of covid. However, it's hard to see incompetence rising to a level of 'crime against humanity' it's more of 'negligent homicide' type of crime. I don't think any president is ever going to be prosecuted for war crimes, unless they are really severe, as most presidents have committed some degree of 'war crimes' or so Noam Chomsky argues.

 

An individual engaging in sexual assault in a non war situation in general - does not count. Your definition is flawed here I think. This is not a war crime/ crime against humanity. Definitely not in the previous definition you posted.

All wars of aggression are not "war crimes" - That is just not true. At Least not Classified as such by the UN - nor ICC.

but we need not defer to someone elses definition. Clearly you see a distinction between what was happening in Syria - mass rape, forced marriage - during a time of war - and for a very long period of time .. this action also being conducted as a function of religious persecution.

Come on here -- there are levels and distinctions here .. we don't want to lump everything into the same basket .. as you are kind of doing.

 

It was a crime at the time. I don't blame him for lying considering who he was married to. You make a good point about no one being hurt, and I do believe there should be no crime if there is no victim. People were butt hurt and thats why they chanted "lock her up!" That is the case here as well.