Donald Trump - GUILTY!

Why does it take so long to indict Trump? I was expecting that after Jan 2021, the investigations will quickly produce something. Two years later, still nothing.

Do the Dems really want to indict Trump, or are they just "playing politics"?

Obviously, an investigation is very different if they assign 3 people on the investigating team, and very different if they assign 300 people on it, with the highest priority.

Now that Trump has announced his candidacy, and the Dems have lost the House, it is very hard to see anything being done.
 
Raoul said:
My read is Garland had to do it now that Trump is officially running for POTUS. This absolves DOJ from being viewed as if Biden's DOJ is prosecuting Trump on Biden's behalf (which is obviously not true). Farming it out to a special prosecutor was pretty much the only chess move to counter Trump's own chess move of announcing, which was obviously done because he thought it would shield him from imminent DOJ indictment.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Chess game is a good analogy. Interesting to see both inquiries rolled into one. This feels like a new chapter.
 
frostbite said:
Why does it take so long to indict Trump? I was expecting that after Jan 2021, the investigations will quickly produce something. Two years later, still nothing.

Do the Dems really want to indict Trump, or are they just "playing politics"?

Obviously, an investigation is very different if they assign 3 people on the investigating team, and very different if they assign 300 people on it, with the highest priority.

Now that Trump has announced his candidacy, and the Dems have lost the House, it is very hard to see anything being done.
Click to expand...
Because those in power don't want to set a precedent where they become answerable to all the laws peasant class has to obey.
 
Gambit said:
Because those in power don't want to set a precedent where they become answerable to all the laws peasant class has to obey.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are right...

That's why I mentioned "playing politics". They keep the whole thing (barely) alive, but actually nothing will be done. Even if Trump loses in 2024, the Dems will let the investigation dissolve and be forgotten. (And many will praise them because that is the "adult in the room behavior", "why make things worse now that Trump is irrelevant", and so on... )
 
Meh, I still believe that the DOJ should eventually send US Marshals to drag Orange Mussolini straight to the courthouse. Use of physicality (think of how Julian Asange was carried out of the Bolivian embassy in London) is very recommended.
 
Oly Francis said:
This analysis is controversial, many consider that won't be the case.

Garland is showing caution in a very complicated situation after Trump announced he we running again, that's hardly a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started because of that word. After everything we have seen from other former world leaders being prosecuted and then sent ot prison for their crimes, I lean on Winslow's assessment.

I already mentioned many times that the best way to punish a politician by throwing the book came out of South Korea. Federal prosecutors were both quick and ruthless over there when they followed the trail all the way to Park Guen-hye and built the case against her.
 
Oly Francis said:
This analysis is controversial, many consider that won't be the case.

Garland is showing caution in a very complicated situation after Trump announced he we running again, that's hardly a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Don Winslow has already answered about those "many who consider that won't be the case". And I agree with his assessment. For two years, Garland has done nothing, prosecuted nobody, many of them have been elected already. For the next two years, Garland will do nothing, it's a safe bet. The House is gone already, if Garland prosecutes now, the House will start investigating him and others, and nothing will happen at the end. It's all a silly political game without any substance.






 
frostbite said:
Don Winslow has already answered about those "many who consider that won't be the case". And I agree with his assessment. For two years, Garland has done nothing, prosecuted nobody, many of them have been elected already. For the next two years, Garland will do nothing, it's a safe bet. The House is gone already, if Garland prosecutes now, the House will start investigating him and others, and nothing will happen at the end. It's all a silly political game without any substance.






Click to expand...


Winslow is an idiot. And he doesn't have a point here. Its just pointless moaning from a propagandist clown.

There is a discussion to be had as to whether or not Garland should've named a special prosecutor, but now that there is one, all it means is the case will be transfered to him, which insulates DOJ from being smeared as a political arm of the White House.
 
Raoul said:
Winslow is an idiot. And he doesn't have a point here. Its just pointless moaning from a propagandist clown.

There is a discussion to be had as to whether or not Garland should've named a special prosecutor, but now that there is one, all it means is the case will be transfered to him, which insulates DOJ from being smeared as a political arm of the White House.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. What Winslow says in these tweets is the truth.

What has Garland been doing for 2 years about Trump? The new prosecutor has to start over. This by itself will take a lot of time. And then you have the House that can start investigations that will further delay everything. Do you really expect that the end result for Trump will be something more than what Mueller did?

What happened with Mueller's investigation? What happened with the heavily redacted documents? We expected that when Dems came into power two years ago, and had the full information of Mueller's investigation, they would prosecute Trump. They didn't. So there was no Trump collusion after all? Was it all "playing politics"? That's what many will believe, and become further alienated from this political system.
 
Raoul said:
There is a discussion to be had as to whether or not Garland should've named a special prosecutor, but now that there is one, all it means is the case will be transfered to him, which insulates DOJ from being smeared as a political arm of the White House.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that there is no feeling of any efficiency at all here. People talk about the risks that the DOJ takes in investigating Trump, but prosecutors in other Western-style democracies also took their share of risks when they investigated and then prosecuted actual or former heads of state.

Park Geun-hye's supporters bitched and moaned for some time, but their complaints meant nothing at the end of the day after everything was exposed in court. The investigation was wrapped up well within a year while only 5 months separated the first arrest in that 2016 scandal and Park's arrest. That was pure efficiency.
 
Last edited:
@Raul, let me ask you another question, since I know that you are much better informed than me. It is an honest and serious question, and it is true that you know much more than I do.

Why did the Dem House ask Trump to testify only in October 2022? Why not one year or one year and a half ago? Why all these delays? And why did they do it just before the elections? Elections that they expected to lose, so they knew that Trump will never testify after all. It seems to me that Trump will certainly not testify, and the House will just stop this investigation without any results, am I wrong about this? And obviously, the House Dems knew all that, for a long time.
 
frostbite said:
I don't agree with you. What Winslow says in these tweets is the truth.

What has Garland been doing for 2 years about Trump? The new prosecutor has to start over. This by itself will take a lot of time. And then you have the House that can start investigations that will further delay everything. Do you really expect that the end result for Trump will be something more than what Mueller did?

What happened with Mueller's investigation? What happened with the heavily redacted documents? We expected that when Dems came into power two years ago, and had the full information of Mueller's investigation, they would prosecute Trump. They didn't. So there was no Trump collusion after all? Was it all "playing politics"? That's what many will believe, and become further alienated from this political system.
Click to expand...

Re: What has Garland been doing over the past two years? Well for one , he hasn’t been AG for two years.

Second, we don’t know what he has on Trump because it’s not public. He certainly isn’t going to expedite the case by revealing his hand just so internet squealers like Winslow can be appeased. Let the legal process play out without this sort of nonsense and let’s see in the end what they have.
 
Raoul said:
Re: What has Garland been doing over the past two years? Well for one , he hasn’t been AG for two years.

Second, we don’t know what he has on Trump because it’s not public. He certainly isn’t going to expedite the case by revealing his hand just so internet squealers like Winslow can be appeased. Let the legal process play out without this sort of nonsense and let’s see in the end what they have.
Click to expand...

I don't engage in conspiracy theories but I also wouldn't be surprised if they kept Trump walking because he was eventually deemed more damaging to his own party than threatening to win a vote for once while also mobilizing a lot of democratic voters and swinging those undecided in the Dems favor. But it's a very complex process and of course it takes much more time to try avoiding any mistake that could easily be exploited and instrumentalised by the political opposition.
 
If 52% vote yes do you think they'll keep saying Twitter is just a leftist snowflake echo chamber? Maybe they could also spend 3 years wrangling about how to best reinstate Trump before completely fecking it up and blaming everyone else.
 
MrMarcello said:
If he's allowed back on Twitter surely that becomes a bigger problem for the GOP than anyone else.

Or maybe that's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

It won't matter that much since Murdoch has already kicked him to the curb and the Mercer family aren't supporting him. He will basically just be another carnival barker on social media at that point.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
The fact remains that there is no feeling of any efficiency at all here. People talk about the risks that the DOJ takes in investigating Trump, but prosecutors in other Western-style democracies also took their share of risks when they investigated and then prosecuted actual or former heads of state.

Park Geun-hye's supporters bitched and moaned for some time, but their complaints meant nothing at the end of the day after everything was exposed in court. The investigation was wrapped up well within a year while only 5 months separated the first arrest in that 2016 scandal and Park's arrest. That was pure efficiency.
Click to expand...

You can't compare what happened with Trump and Park Geun-hye's case.

1) She was condemned for corruption amongst other things, the case was FAR easier to build since they had proof of transfers of funds. She was pretty much caught red handed.
2) Her approval ratings were absolutely terrible at that time, she basically had no support in the general population
3) She was impeached by an overwhelming majority of 234-56 in parliement, including 60 members of her own party voting in favour, she had no political support.

It's far harder to build a case against someone for mishandling documents and inciting an insurrection as it is very technical and hard to sell to both judges and voters. On top of that, Trump is now a candidate for a presidential election.

Having an independant, well respected prosecutor to pull this trigger to defuse accusation of political instrumentalization of the DOJ is an understandable move.
 
Oly Francis said:
You can't compare what happened with Trump and Park Geun-hye's case.

1) She was condemned for corruption amongst other things, the case was FAR easier to build since they had proof of transfers of funds. She was pretty much caught red handed.
2) Her approval ratings were absolutely terrible at that time, she basically had no support in the general population
3) She was impeached by an overwhelming majority of 234-56 in parliement, including 60 members of her own party voting in favour, she had no political support.

It's far harder to build a case against someone for mishandling documents and inciting an insurrection as it is very technical and hard to sell to both judges and voters. On top of that, Trump is now a candidate for a presidential election.

Having an independant, well respected prosecutor to pull this trigger to defuse accusation of political instrumentalization of the DOJ is an understandable move.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Korean case is different. But the Trump case is obvious. There was an attack on the Capitol! What else do you need? It is not something secret or hidden. How many months do they need to investigate to find out if Trump has some legal responsibility?

Plus the Mueller investigation started in 2017, it did not start in 2021. We were left with the impression that there was enough evidence in there to put Trump in prison. The redacted documents were supposed to be enough. After the Dems came into power, these documents were completely forgotten! Why?

Finally, this new "respected prosecutor" will certainly do not "defuse accusations". On the contrary! The Trump acolytes will keep saying the same crazy stuff. And they will "respect" this new prosecutor even less than Garland. The only thing Garland has achieved is that he has absolved himself of all responsibility. Perhaps he was afraid that the Trumpist crazies will target him. So now he can stay for 2 more years, do nothing, and get into retirement with a fat check and zero worries about anything. Good job!
 
Fact remains that the DOJ, the Attorney General and the entire American justice system don't have the balls to go after politicians when they should.

Trump did all of his illegal shit in the open, including that recorded phone call to Brad Raffensperger. That is a low-hanging fruit in comparison to the South Korean case.
 
frostbite said:
Yes, the Korean case is different. But the Trump case is obvious. There was an attack on the Capitol! What else do you need? It is not something secret or hidden. How many months do they need to investigate to find out if Trump has some legal responsibility?
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea of the legal standards required to prosecute for insurrection or seditious conspiracy. They are incredibly high. There's a reason these investigations are taking a long time, they need to study word by word what Trump said, when he said it, what he knew at that specfic time and what he was told.

You can't just prosecute a former President and think "oh well, at least the dems will be happy, as for the evidence we'll figure it out as we go".

"There was an attack on the Capitol! What else do you need?" The answer is "A LOT more than that", and I don't really understand someone could have a whole range of opinions about prosecuting Trump without knowing the basics of the law.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Fact remains that the DOJ, the Attorney General and the entire American justice system don't have the balls to go after politicians when they should.

Trump did all of his illegal shit in the open, including that recorded phone call to Brad Raffensperger. That is a low-hanging fruit in comparison to the South Korean case.
Click to expand...

I don't think is is true at all. If there is evidence against Trump, I'm confident Garland will proceed with prosecuting. He simply isn't going to do it according to the preferred schedule of some twitter muppet.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think is is true at all. If there is evidence against Trump, I'm confident Garland will proceed with prosecuting. He simply isn't going to do it according to the preferred schedule of some twitter muppet.
Click to expand...

What people don't understand is that "look he did all this illegal shit" isn't a legal standard. In the Raffensperger call, a prosecutor would need to prove that Trump was knowingly and willfully pressuring Raffensperger to count nonexistent votes when he told the GOP official, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”

Some people could argue he was, some could think the opposit, but it's by no means a "low hanging fruit".
 
Oly Francis said:
What people don't understand is that "look he did all this illegal shit" isn't a legal standard. In the Raffensperger call, a prosecutor would need to prove that Trump was knowingly and willfully pressuring Raffensperger to count nonexistent votes when he told the GOP official, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”

Some people could argue he was, some could think the opposit, but it's by no means a "low hanging fruit".
Click to expand...

Spot on. There's a bizarre instant gratification internet culture that seems to demand results on their own desired timeline instead of simply allowing the legal process to unfold correctly and organically. The results will be in when they're in.
 
Raoul said:
Spot on. There's a bizarre instant gratification internet culture that seems to demand results on their own desired timeline instead of simply allowing the legal process to unfold correctly and organically. The results will be in when they're in.
Click to expand...

But it is not instant in this case. The Mueller investigation started in 2017. The NY prosecutors resigned in January 2022 because the DA wouldn't prosecute. It is obvious that people are dragging their feet here.

And you did not answer my previous question. Why did the House ask Trump to testify just before the elections? Why not in Oct 2021 for example? It was obvious that Trump will delay and never testify. Why did they wait for so long?
 
frostbite said:
But it is not instant in this case. The Mueller investigation started in 2017. The NY investigators resigned in January 2022 because the DA wouldn't prosecute. It is obvious that people are dragging their feet here.

And you did not answer my previous question. Why did the House ask Trump to testify just before the elections? Why not in Oct 2021 for example? It was obvious that Trump will delay and never testify. Why did they wait for so long?
Click to expand...

Those are two separate topics. Barr deliberately downplayed the results of the Mueller investigation because he was Trump's AG and didn't want to Trump to go down. That has nothing to do with Garland.

As for the 2nd bit, the January 6th commission wasn't that far along in its investigation in 2021. You always go for the lower hanging fruit and work your way up to the leader. Its a bit irrelevant in the end because Trump had no intention of testifying either way.
 
Raoul said:
Spot on. There's a bizarre instant gratification internet culture that seems to demand results on their own desired timeline instead of simply allowing the legal process to unfold correctly and organically. The results will be in when they're in.
Click to expand...

Is it really so bizarre, given the absolute circus that the last time was, and the fact that it then ended in feck all? It's 2022, Trump is two years out of office and still has suffered precisely zero tangible consequences for his actions. At this rate he might be President before anything happens, at which point it won't happen.
 
nimic said:
Is it really so bizarre, given the absolute circus that the last time was, and the fact that it then ended in feck all? It's 2022, Trump is two years out of office and still has suffered precisely zero tangible consequences for his actions. At this rate he might be President before anything happens, at which point it won't happen.
Click to expand...

These things take time. And there are no guarantees of a certain outcome. It all depends on the evidence that is presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.