For starters he's been in violation of the Emoluments Clause from day 1

I'm wondering what's the point of the clause if we're free to violate it?

I still think NY is going to prosecute him the day he's no longer President. Possibly FL too

I'm almost positive he's committed financial crimes in NY (tax evasion among other things) and FL (money laundering, likely in relation to real estate dealings w wealthy Russians, more tax evasion, etc)

I don’t really want to continue with this thread I just think we should trust the office and process of the president .

Lmao

Read again. Slowly. The part I bolded*.

*quoted lol

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE lmao guys this isn’t hard. Bobby Mueller already said it uh very clearly.

I mean he’s going to be out of office forever on the 21st.

Ok grand inquisitor.

I struggle with your view more than almost any other.

I recall when Eliot Spitzer was busted for using high end escort agencies and I wanted him to do serious time.

Not because I think that is a crime that deserves time (as I don't) but because he was the law and order Governor cracking down on prostitution and trying to get those caught longer jail time.


For me it is a particularly bad offense if you are put in a position of power and you break the laws you govern. And even worse if you argue for stronger sentences against those breaking the laws thinking you will not get caught.

In my view those should be sentence multipliers and the full weight of law should come at you hard.

If those in charge of the law can break the law at their whim, the concept of law really becomes meaningless. It is not law, and is simply punishment for the weak and powerless.

Trump and Barr are the top two law enforcement agents in the country and for that reason they should be held way above the standard of average citizens.

He’s already publicly positioned for a 2024 Comeback run. You keep missing.

Again, the point that you keep missing is that prosecuting very very popular evil losers like Nazis or Trump doesn’t invariably lead to them being martyred. Even if it did, it’s easily still worth it.

Lol moral equivocation is the surest sign of a small mind

You might be right about that part , that was just something I said. Ok I change my mind.

I’m not very smart. If you were me and wanted to show you had a “ big mind” how would you have responded?

Also, I don’t think you got what I’m saying.

.

Conflating the inquisition and all that connotes with a standard American prosecution isn’t what I would have said.

Your point is essentially that I’m vindictive which fine sure I am to a certain degree but even that’s not quite right because vindictive acts usually entail instinctual hate. Like it would be vindictive to prosecute like Kayleigh or something.

I was referencing the grand inquisitor from the novel brothers karamazov by doestoyevsky. I don’t really think authority should govern freedom.

I really don't have an issue if Trump doesn't get prosecuted. Either because he technically didn't break the law or because no US Attorney or States attorney thinks they can get a conviction. Trump supporters will think the entire system is corrupt including grand juries and republican judges if Trump gets indicted. Rather than the obvious solution that Trump was simply corrupt.

Spaceman Bryce your reply in post 66 is an unquotable mess.

Either just reply below the post or highlight a section you are replying and his the little quote box first (the one beside the YouTube in the upper bar, and it will isolate that section of post for a reply.

Suffice it to say, the idea of 'one losing one jobs being punishment enough' seems beyond short sighted and tipping into stupid.

SO the next Trump facing losing a second term has every incentive to lie, cheat steal his way to try and stay in power. Why? Because the punishment is the exact same if he does not try to lie, cheat and steal. In both instances he is merely going away and "won't be in charge anymore".

However if the lie, cheat, steal works he stays in power.

So the lie, cheat, steal has Zero percent downside in a loss but 100 percent upside in a win.

Its like saying one should not punish an attempt at theft as the person leaving with no goods is punishment enough.

I don’t believe in arresting people for theft. And not just attempted theft. Completed theft.

WTH?

Someone walks in your house. Steals all your property and you confront them while trying to get away with police in tow and you do not believe they should be arrested?

Should they even be stopped?

After I confront them, why am I now “trying to get away with police in tow?”

If it’s an armed robbery that’s different than theft. Plus., how are they going to steal all my property? That’s a lot of property. Are they going to steal my house too?

Edit: instead of derailing I think robbery and burglary charges should be punishable by arrests in certain instances, but not theft.


Edit again instead of derailing : the point I was making is we should prosecute a lot less stuff and be slow to prosecute when it isn’t necessary.

On what grounds may I ask?

usually its only Dems that get thrown in jail.

You "confronted them" as they were leaving with your property. They refused to stop or give you back your stuff even as you have the "police in tow" (arriving) and you tell the police 'you refuse to press any charges, let them go'.
haha, you are pretty naive. Do I need to cut and paste stories of people away for the weekend or night when burglers break in to their home. Or even home and sleeping while people are in the house grabbing the tv and other items?

I don't think you know robbery and burglary ARE theft.

You are trying to make some meaningless distinction for some very weird reason.


That I entirely agree with. But not the nonsense you said prior.

Multiple counts of obstruction of justice
Bribery
Fraud
Tax evasion
Violations of the foreign corrupt practices act
Money laundering

That's a pretty good start.

Against my better judgment, I guess I'll weigh in here.

Trump should not be immune from prosecution just because he was president, or just because we want to move on. On the flip side, Trump should not be prosecuted just because he is an ******* or just because he is the worst president in my lifetime. Everyone should be able to agree on these baseline concepts.

Should he be prosecuted? I would not be at all surprised if Trump committed some of the crimes Wookie listed. But in most cases, I don't feel like I have access to enough information to have a final opinion. The likelihood of getting a conviction on these sorts of crimes is very dependent on the facts. I'll give you one example. If Trump made appropriate disclosures to an outside tax advisor like PwC, and the outside tax advisor gave him a "more likely than not" opinion, the chances of getting a conviction for criminal tax evasion are very low. I have no idea what disclosures Trump did or did not make to his tax advisors.

If I were the charged with making the decision, I would have a relatively high threshhold for prosecution. A failed prosecution is far worse for the world imo than no prosecution at all. But if the facts were such that I thought the chances of a conviction were very high, then I would be in favor of prosecution.