Donald Trump - GUILTY!

Maticmaker said:
Not at all, only you don't seem to understand that personal opinions are based on a range of things that are personal, e.g. beliefs, or insights/understanding of events, personal convictions (e.g. United will win three trophies this year) etc. and of course the 'selected facts' that support that opinion, that is the persons opinion of what constitutes 'truth' ... their truth... like you do.

I see elsewhere that you have 'bailed out' of this discussion now in frustration at an old mans ramblings, don't worry you wont be the first to do that.

Therefore may I thank you for your posts even the ones that were less than polite, we've passed a few hours of more or less a peaceful exchange of ideas... now, if you are at work, then travel home safely ....and don't take it out on the dog! ;)
Click to expand...
But what is your opinion then? That it's taboo to criminally prosecute a former president, but OK to take a sitting president to civil court? Because a former president might spill the beans but a sitting one won't?

And, wasn't Nixon pardoned? As in, pardoned for a crime committed, not an exoneration? So by accepting the pardon he accepted he committed the crime?
 
Peter van der Gea said:
But what is your opinion then? That it's taboo to criminally prosecute a former president, but OK to take a sitting president to civil court? Because a former president might spill the beans but a sitting one won't?

And, wasn't Nixon pardoned? As in, pardoned for a crime committed, not an exoneration? So by accepting the pardon he accepted he committed the crime?
Click to expand...

That is something which I have called a 'taboo', only to try to draw attention to the situation that has existed where past Presidents have never been prosecuted for things they either ordered, or were protected by 'plausible deniability', or undertook personally whilst in the White House, i.e. what goes on in the White House stays in the White House etc. During this period they were seen by many as most important (First) person in the US and generally as the leader of the free world.

Of course, the reasons for this can never be proved one way or the other but it is my opinion that for the reason of protecting the person who has served in the highest office and who will have bodyguards around them for the rest of their lives, they are given a 'pass' on their personal accountability for their time as President and are sent out to set up their own library and foundation etc.

Of course if a President patently ''fouls up' on his watch as Nixon did (by recording his own involvement) then they pay the price, but that price was to remove him from office. Similarly, if criminal wrong doing by the ex President occurred prior to them becoming President or on having left the White House and they are no longer President, then the 'taboo' doesn't cover this, or it is assumed it would not.

This is the first time an ex-President is to face charges of criminal misdoings that took place whilst they were still the President. It is something that hasn't happened before and it seems like Alvin Bragg wants to be first in line and be entered in the history books.

I don't think it has anything to do with an ex-President's possibility of 'spilling the beans'... although with Trump that is something which may have to come into the reckoning.

However bringing a ex-President into court for things he (allegedly) did whilst in Office will no doubt impact on how the US is governed and how it leads the free world, in the future.
 
That darn Bragg, if only he’d have known his place & didn’t clamor to be the first one to take Trump to trial…

 
Maticmaker said:
This is the first time an ex-President is to face charges of criminal misdoings that took place whilst they were still the President. It is something that hasn't happened before and it seems like Alvin Bragg wants to be first in line and be entered in the history books.
Click to expand...
Except that isn't the case at all, Bragg is prosecuting Trump for something he did before he was President
 
Red in STL said:
Except that isn't the case at all, Bragg is prosecuting Trump for something he did before he was President
Click to expand...

Yes that's right, Bragg's case is prior to Trump becoming President, but he's still the first to prosecute Trump post his Presidency, which is perhaps the notoriety he wants, or just (perhaps) in case the 'taboo' does 'kick in' with regard to the other 'in office' charges coming down the line for Trump

RedDevilQuebecois said:
The real first case against Trump for something he did when he was President will come from Georgia.
Click to expand...

Yes it seems it will be this or the incitement to riot case, that will be the 'taboo' breaker's, not Alvin's charge...but it still hasn't stop Alvin seeking to be first out of the traps!
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
The real first case against Trump for something he did when he was President will come from Georgia.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that as well, but it might be neck & neck down the stretch with the documents case.

Been irritating that Willis has had to wait til a scheduled grand jury impanelment & that she couldn't do it sooner.
 
I’m annoyed that the GA call was in Jan 2020, it’s all on tape so not refutable and it’s now April 2023 and they still haven’t dealt with it.
 
utdalltheway said:
I’m annoyed that the GA call was in Jan 2020, it’s all on tape so not refutable and it’s now April 2023 and they still haven’t dealt with it.
Click to expand...
Criminal grand juries are only convened during certain parts of the year & she's waiting for May. She missed the other two because she was working with the special grand jury.

But it does feel slow as shit, I agree.
 
FtluI9KWYAAnb8s


No one is coming out to lay their lives down for you.
 
I'd actually like to hear from the disillusioned die hard supporters that have lost a lot of money, and probably loved ones to COVID/bleach. As mentioned above there are fewer and fewer people dying on his hill now.
 
calodo2003 said:
Criminal grand juries are only convened during certain parts of the year & she's waiting for May. She missed the other two because she was working with the special grand jury.

But it does feel slow as shit, I agree.
Click to expand...

What you talking about, DA's are "rushing to be the first", to make a name for themselves, don't you know?
 
mariachi-19 said:
Those duties do not extend to criminal behaviour. Unsure of the US lawyers rules but in Australia we have a duty to notify the appropriate persons if we reasonably believe our client has been involved in a serious crime.
Click to expand...

It is the same in the US for serious crimes. If an attorney is found to help cover them up, they face disbarment (losing their license) and jail time.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
  • Death of a Client. The privilege may be breached upon the death of a testator-client if litigation ensues between the decedent's heirs, legatees or other parties claiming under the deceased client.
  • Fiduciary Duty. ...
  • Crime or Fraud Exception. ...
  • Common Interest Exception.
Click to expand...
 
Drifter said:
FtluI9KWYAAnb8s


No one is coming out to lay their lives down for you.
Click to expand...
He so badly wants a BLM esque riot but on his behalf. But everytime he's asked for it, and it's been multiple times now, it's been a handful of people at most. Even J6 was mostly Proud Boys and various other organized groups lead by Roger Stone, all the normal folk looked like they were from the set of trailer park boys.

He always used to mention 'big bad bikers' being ready to go for him, I'm pretty sure he got that idea from the chechens/bully types Russia sent to Ukraine to screw with their elections back in 2016 or so. He thought he'd have that support here but it's been embarrassing
 
Think this is a good discussion of where things are:
  • Stupid charges by Alvin Bragg
  • Not going to stick
  • Poisons the well on any future charges with more meat
  • Ensures Trump wins the primary


My prediction is Orange man has a 15-25% chance of winning the general; before these charges were brought up he had a 15-25% chance of winning the primary.
 
Suedesi said:
Think this is a good discussion of where things are:
  • Stupid charges by Alvin Bragg
  • Not going to stick
  • Poisons the well on any future charges with more meat
  • Ensures Trump wins the primary


My prediction is Orange man has a 15-25% chance of winning the general; before these charges were brought up he had a 15-25% chance of winning the primary.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Suedesi said:
Think this is a good discussion of where things are:
  • Stupid charges by Alvin Bragg
  • Not going to stick
  • Poisons the well on any future charges with more meat
  • Ensures Trump wins the primary


My prediction is Orange man has a 15-25% chance of winning the general; before these charges were brought up he had a 15-25% chance of winning the primary.
Click to expand...


The following applies for every single panelist there. :lol:

 
Maticmaker said:
That is something which I have called a 'taboo', only to try to draw attention to the situation that has existed where past Presidents have never been prosecuted for things they either ordered, or were protected by 'plausible deniability', or undertook personally whilst in the White House, i.e. what goes on in the White House stays in the White House etc. During this period they were seen by many as most important (First) person in the US and generally as the leader of the free world.

Of course, the reasons for this can never be proved one way or the other but it is my opinion that for the reason of protecting the person who has served in the highest office and who will have bodyguards around them for the rest of their lives, they are given a 'pass' on their personal accountability for their time as President and are sent out to set up their own library and foundation etc.

Of course if a President patently ''fouls up' on his watch as Nixon did (by recording his own involvement) then they pay the price, but that price was to remove him from office. Similarly, if criminal wrong doing by the ex President occurred prior to them becoming President or on having left the White House and they are no longer President, then the 'taboo' doesn't cover this, or it is assumed it would not.

This is the first time an ex-President is to face charges of criminal misdoings that took place whilst they were still the President. It is something that hasn't happened before and it seems like Alvin Bragg wants to be first in line and be entered in the history books.

I don't think it has anything to do with an ex-President's possibility of 'spilling the beans'... although with Trump that is something which may have to come into the reckoning.

However bringing a ex-President into court for things he (allegedly) did whilst in Office will no doubt impact on how the US is governed and how it leads the free world, in the future.
Click to expand...

No such taboo exists, you've pretty much made it up. It is though, the first time a President has committed flagrant criminal actions on multiple occasions. The only impact might be future Presidents are less likely to make such flagrant criminal actions which can only be a good thing. There is pretty much no negative to Trump facing these various charges. Nixon could have been charged but he was pardoned and it was a different era.
 
Suedesi said:
Think this is a good discussion of where things are:
  • Stupid charges by Alvin Bragg
  • Not going to stick
  • Poisons the well on any future charges with more meat
  • Ensures Trump wins the primary


My prediction is Orange man has a 15-25% chance of winning the general; before these charges were brought up he had a 15-25% chance of winning the primary.
Click to expand...

Trumps numbers with independents has fallen since the indictment. He may beat DeSantis to the nomination because that guy has the personality of a wet paper towel but he will still fall to Biden. This doesn't do anything to help him with people who voted against him. And their own rhetoric of stolen elections will hurt them further when their own base thinks what's the point?
 
Rado_N said:
People really need to stop feeding maticmaker.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Anyone so desperate to think ill of someone on the basis of no evidence whatsoever must be projecting their own image on to them. No facts will change their mind, it's purely "I would do something self-serving and underhanded so they must be too".
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
No such taboo exists, you've pretty much made it up.
Click to expand...

How do you know?
Can you name any previous President brought before the courts for crimes allegedly committed whilst they were in office?
Do you believe no previous President ever ordered or arranged for, or undertook plausible deniability, or committed a criminal act whilst on duty in the White House?

Yes, I've called it a 'taboo' but it could easily be called a political 'understanding' shared by the main parties, Congress, etc. that when he/she is serving the Country in its highest office, they are given a 'pass' when they leave office on matters that they were involved in that would/might otherwise constitute a criminal act?

Whether Trump is guilty or not, is not the point I am making. What I am asking is how will the dismantling of this (lets not call it a taboo) but 'an understanding' between the executive and the judiciary, affect future Presidents 'whilst they are in office; are there likely to be situations when 'in the moment' their decisions may be constrained or regulated by what they might get charged with after they leave office?
If this could be the case, how will it effect the Presidents freedom to act as President in the US and Leader of the free World?
 
Maticmaker said:
How do you know?
Can you name any previous President brought before the courts for crimes allegedly committed whilst they were in office?
Do you believe no previous President ever ordered or arranged for, or undertook plausible deniability, or committed a criminal act whilst on duty in the White House?

Yes, I've called it a 'taboo' but it could easily be called a political 'understanding' shared by the main parties, Congress, etc. that when he/she is serving the Country in its highest office, they are given a 'pass' when they leave office on matters that they were involved in that would/might otherwise constitute a criminal act?

Whether Trump is guilty or not, is not the point I am making. What I am asking is how will the dismantling of this (lets not call it a taboo) but 'an understanding' between the executive and the judiciary, affect future Presidents 'whilst they are in office; are there likely to be situations when 'in the moment' their decisions may be constrained or regulated by what they might get charged with after they leave office?
If this could be the case, how will it effect the Presidents freedom to act as President in the US and Leader of the free World?
Click to expand...
Are you actually arguing that previously it was taboo to prosecute a former president for crimes they committed in office?
 
Peter van der Gea said:
Are you actually arguing that previously it was taboo to prosecute a former president for crimes they committed in office?
Click to expand...

On reflection perhaps 'taboo' was the wrong word, so 'mea-culpa, mea-culpa mea-maxima culpa' (I have been known to use the wrong word on occasions in the past, the use of 'coup' for example ;)).

However to answer your point about the prosecution of former Presidents, yes I believe some sort of 'understanding' existed whereby former Presidents were given ''a pass' on activity they were responsible for whilst President. There would be some limitations of course, as one poster asked "what if a President, whilst President took up an automatic weapon and mowed down schoolchildren? I think we would hear about that at the time, I don't think it would wait until the President had left office for them to be charged!

As I understand it the US does not recognise the Court of International Justice in the Hague, which may have a bearing?

Given the nature of the main charges (so far), the incitement to riot/Georgia intervention seem to be so focused on Donald Trump's own personal interests to remain in power, and not for the greater good of the Country, that a decision to 'prosecute and be dammed' perhaps has been taken despite any previous 'understandings' and the powers that be across the divide, and for their own reasons, want to see Donald
in court.

The underlying point is however, is it worth it to dismantle this 'understanding' (if you accept it exists) for someone like Trump, who has always shown a disdain for politicians and indeed the various offices in Government, or is it the one case that can be seen as an exception?
The risk is however that in dismantling the 'understanding' it may well curtail the remit of future Presidents, i.e. their hand may be 'stayed' by what might happen to them, once they step out from the Oval office for the last time.

Personally I don't think it is worth the risk for the future of the Office, to try to 'nail' Trump... is he really going to suffer, or to simply glorify himself in his martyrdom?
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes that's right, Bragg's case is prior to Trump becoming President, but he's still the first to prosecute Trump post his Presidency, which is perhaps the notoriety he wants, or just (perhaps) in case the 'taboo' does 'kick in' with regard to the other 'in office' charges coming down the line for Trump



Yes it seems it will be this or the incitement to riot case, that will be the 'taboo' breaker's, not Alvin's charge...but it still hasn't stop Alvin seeking to be first out of the traps!
Click to expand...
It’s not an “ incitement to riot case” which would be bad enough it’s a case of Insurrection against the US Government . With regard to the
Documents in Mar-A- Lago it’s an Espionage case.
Also by raising 200 million bucks on the back of his big lie Trump has left himself open to Wire Fraud charges which carry a 20 year sentence.
In Georgia he faces a RICO prosecution.
 
Maticmaker said:
On reflection perhaps 'taboo' was the wrong word, so 'mea-culpa, mea-culpa mea-maxima culpa' (I have been known to use the wrong word on occasions in the past, the use of 'coup' for example ;)).

However to answer your point about the prosecution of former Presidents, yes I believe some sort of 'understanding' existed whereby former Presidents were given ''a pass' on activity they were responsible for whilst President. There would be some limitations of course, as one poster asked "what if a President, whilst President took up an automatic weapon and mowed down schoolchildren? I think we would hear about that at the time, I don't think it would wait until the President had left office for them to be charged!

As I understand it the US does not recognise the Court of International Justice in the Hague, which may have a bearing?

Given the nature of the main charges (so far), the incitement to riot/Georgia intervention seem to be so focused on Donald Trump's own personal interests to remain in power, and not for the greater good of the Country, that a decision to 'prosecute and be dammed' perhaps has been taken despite any previous 'understandings' and the powers that be across the divide, and for their own reasons, want to see Donald
in court.

The underlying point is however, is it worth it to dismantle this 'understanding' (if you accept it exists) for someone like Trump, who has always shown a disdain for politicians and indeed the various offices in Government, or is it the one case that can be seen as an exception?
The risk is however that in dismantling the 'understanding' it may well curtail the remit of future Presidents, i.e. their hand may be 'stayed' by what might happen to them, once they step out from the Oval office for the last time.

Personally I don't think it is worth the risk for the future of the Office, to try to 'nail' Trump... is he really going to suffer, or to simply glorify himself in his martyrdom?
Click to expand...
So your point is that, in your opinion, there is an 'understanding' that former presidents are not taken to court to argue their innocence ofcertain crimes committed while in office?

What proof do you have of this 'understanding' do you base this opinion on. Not Nixon, he was pardoned, which meant he accepted guilt and didn't protest his innocence. Which other presidents committed crimes in office?

Rather than ask us to disprove the existence of such an 'understanding', the burden of proof lies with you to prove such an 'understanding' exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.