Lock him up! Former PotUS Trump indicted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

Politically motivated prosecution or not, it is his fault if he broke the law.

---

I agree with this, but there is a catch. If we take for granted the political motivation behind this prosecution, what if he didn't break the law? Well, this law at least. I do find the accusations rather petty as I mentioned earlier. Wouldn't that mean that Alvin Bragg (and his paymasters) are now openly interfering with elections? Ironically, as they allege Trump did? If they wanted to avoid casting this shadow on the US democratic system and their motives, wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute before the campaign started? Or after it's over?

For all the "not my president" shenanigans, this man was the US president. Lawfully elected and all. And is currently running to be the US president again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

Also, as Alastor said "the others did it first!" is not a good defense when it comes to politicizing this and trying to use the woohaa for the party's benefit.

---

No, this is how justice is supposed to work in a modern first world nation. People are not supposed to get away with defying the law because they had an inheritance or an R next to their name.

The only reason the Republicans think it political is because they have used frivolous investigations as political tools for decades. Clinton is the most investigated person in human history, having been more or less continuously investigated by Republicans for over thirty years without so much as a hint she has ever jaywalked.

Because the Republicans have relied on blatantly political investigations and baseless accusations for so long, they have come to automatically assume that everyone else does the same thing. The Republicans have forgotten what integrity and justice are even supposed to look like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramashan

I have made no comment on the case what so ever.

Your post was essentially: Trump may have broken the law, but the liberals are destroying our country and are the real threat. Therefor: Excusism, since one has nothing to do with the other.

---

Admitting you don’t have anything to say about the case isn’t a great way to suggest my commentary on the case is flawed, and neither is deliberately misrepresenting said commentary. You seem to be under the impression I care about Trump or what happens to him personally, and are therefore attacking my motives based on your own uninformed assumptions. Liberals being the “real threat” does have nothing to do with whether or not Trump broke the law. You’ve got that much right. But that observation also has nothing to do with my post.

If you had at least read the article like I suggested, you would know, based on the prosecution’s own comments, they aren’t actually that interested in whether or not Trump falsified business records per se. These are misdemeanor charges. That’s not an excuse, that’s a fact. Do you know what a misdemeanor is? “A minor wrongdoing; a nonindictable offense.” I suppose the dictionary is “excusist?”

What makes these misdemeanor charges into potential crimes, and therefore what Bragg is trying to prove, is that they were committed with the intention of committing crimes. Problem is, Trump isn’t being charged with those crimes. I even quoted that part. If prosecutors can prove that Trump committed these misdemeanors, they might be able to convince a jury those misdemeanors were intended to be part of something much worse, and should therefore be upgraded to crimes. Why? Because Trump is a bad, bad man. According to the prosecution, “The defendant Donald J. Trump falsified New York business records in order to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election.”

Thus, in the prosecution’s own words, this another installment in the impeachment saga; political punishment by other means. Fact, not excuse. Since Democrats couldn’t prove Trump engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election in service to Putin, nor the 2020 election by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow the US government, they are now trying to prove Trump concealed sex payments to undermine the 2016 election, relying once again on the power of suggestion. It would be hilarious were it not for the fact the liberal establishment has spent years now undermining US institutions and using their dominance of those institutions in a naked attempt to obliterate their political nemesis. My post was about what that means for my country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

Politically motivated prosecution or not, it is his fault if he broke the law.

---

Well, the fact this indictement happens the same time as a 500 page paid research of dirt on DeSantis is released on the internet, doesn't help to build a case there isn't political coordination.. The fact it was done by a firm focused on politics doesn't make a good case that current events aren't politically motivated.. 500 pages.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pposition-res/
https://desantisresearchbook.com/

I guess optics are completly off, it's going to be a plain irrational brawl, and if this isn't politically motivated, the worst possible timing was chosen.

Quote:

---

I guess optics are completly off, it's going to be a plain irrational brawl, and if this isn't politically motivated, the worst possible timing was chosen.

---

Democrats are going after DeSantis for similar reasons as they are Trump, but in the latter case, the motivation is still primarily to find something to hang their “Trump cheated Hillary out of the Presidency” narrative on, even years later, as pathetic as it is dangerous. DeSantis is the only possible GOP challenger to Trump in the primary, so they certainly aren’t leaving him out. To cite an institutional example, they’ve mobilized their resources to accuse him of human trafficking for doing what Democrat governors also do in response to unsustainable levels of illegal immigration. You’ll recall the self-congratulatory coverage about how some of the wealthy elite of Martha’s Vineyard deigned to interact with a few dozen migrants that were immediately whisked away by the National Guard, scorning border state complaints about having to face thousands of illegal migrants a day. Luv Ron.

In terms of timing the indictment, the liberal establishment learned the hard way they can’t risk fighting Trump at the ballot box. Although, if frivolous criminal indictment of a former POTUS isn’t even out of the question, regardless of the costs, one has to wonder if Trump won’t be killed in an accident or something if it appears that won’t do the job. Kubitschek vibes.

I can think of many reasons why Trump being president was and would be bad for the country, but nothing is sacred to the radical left. One doesn’t have to draw comparisons to the state being a mere tool in the hands of the Party, as in China or the former USSR to see Democrats have proven as much since 2015. In a way, Trump has been the perfect mirror to expose the whole system for the comical, tacky, corrupt mess that it is. The truth is often a double-edged sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alastor

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that Trump's prosecution has political undertones.

---

Such as? Is there anything beyond "isn't it convenient that..."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

Such as? Is there anything beyond "isn't it convenient that..."?

---

Sure there is: "I don't like it."

I'd also like to point out that contrary to what some posters are saying "Democrats" did not indict Trump. Trump was indicted by a grand jury of 28 people. The Democratic Party had no say in whether or not to indict him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alastor

I agree with this, but there is a catch. If we take for granted the political motivation behind this prosecution, what if he didn't break the law? Well, this law at least. I do find the accusations rather petty as I mentioned earlier. Wouldn't that mean that Alvin Bragg (and his paymasters) are now openly interfering with elections? Ironically, as they allege Trump did? If they wanted to avoid casting this shadow on the US democratic system and their motives, wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute before the campaign started? Or after it's over?

For all the "not my president" shenanigans, this man was the US president. Lawfully elected and all. And is currently running to be the US president again.

---

This man was the elected USA president... and he broke the law. If he had not broken the law then they would keep attacking him the exact same way they have been since 2015. It's not that Trump doesn't give them things to use against him. They could not prosecute before his campaign started because they didn't have enough evidence.
So no, this is not Bragg interfering with an election. This is Bragg doing his job. If a mass murderer (say, Kyle Rittenhouse) decided to run, there would be much more scrutiny on his actions that night. And if they find some forgotten law that he broke including minor stuff like parking on a handicap spot or that he was behind in his mandatory car service etc, they will prosecute him for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fkizz

Well, the fact this indictement happens the same time as a 500 page paid research of dirt on DeSantis is released on the internet, doesn't help to build a case there isn't political coordination.. The fact it was done by a firm focused on politics doesn't make a good case that current events aren't politically motivated.. 500 pages.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pposition-res/
https://desantisresearchbook.com/

I guess optics are completly off, it's going to be a plain irrational brawl, and if this isn't politically motivated, the worst possible timing was chosen.

---

It totally is politically motivated. That does not mean they are prosecuting Trump unlawfully. As I said before, Trump's political aspirations obviously draw scrutiny on him. And yes, it is a good thing to hold possible presidents in higher standards.

Let me give you a different example: If Bloomberg was close to getting the nomination, there would be investigations about him, politically motivated.
And if those investigations found he was using unethical means, his political enemies, rubbing their hands in glee, would expose him. And that is a good thing. You would want to know if the person that may be elected to an important office is a criminal.

The bad thing would be if one's political enemies were making up allegations and those allegations landed one in prison.



Here is another example, from the other side:
Hunter Biden! Yes, my progressive friends, Hunter Biden who has a lot of dirt swept under the carpet. It may not be something or it may be. And we will find out because I doubt the Republicans would let that go. They will eventually find enough to build a case and charge him.

If Hunter Biden decides to run for office, the Republicans (the same ones shouting that this is a politically motivated witch hunt) would try much harder to build a case against him and land him in a courtroom. And that would be politically motivated. And it would still not be wrong because that politically motivated witch hunt would examine whether Hunter Biden is a criminal in the eyes of USA law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict

I'd also like to point out that contrary to what some posters are saying "Democrats" did not indict Trump. Trump was indicted by a grand jury of 28 people. The Democratic Party had no say in whether or not to indict him.

---

Trump hasn’t been indicted for violating election laws by anyone, as previously pointed out. He’s being accused of such by a prosecutor who campaigned on his willingness to use his office to service Democrat political priorities. One doesn’t have to be a Trump supporter to see that; it’s a basic fact of the case.

Quote:

---

But what election law, exactly, did this plot run afoul of? The entire prosecution hinges on that question—and yet neither the indictment nor the statement of facts identifies it. Instead, Bragg briefly described them in a press conference afterward: a New York law that prohibits any conspiracy to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means” and a federal limit on campaign contributions. It’s not totally clear whether violation of a federal law can transform the business record charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, so that theory is somewhat shaky.

These charges will be difficult to prove. There can be no doubt that the district attorney faces an uphill climb. They tell the story of a complex conspiracy to illicitly alter the course of the 2016 election—potentially, a powerful tale of corruption that persuades both the jury and the public of this prosecution’s necessity. But Bragg’s legal theory is, if not convoluted, a fairly confusing effort to patch together disparate offenses into one alleged crime, carried out over 34 illegal payments.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...slam-dunk.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

This man was the elected USA president... and he broke the law. If he had not broken the law then they would keep attacking him the exact same way they have been since 2015. It's not that Trump doesn't give them things to use against him. They could not prosecute before his campaign started because they didn't have enough evidence.

So no, this is not Bragg interfering with an election. This is Bragg doing his job.

---

Allegedly broke the law. And considering who Trump is, the current circumstance of an ongoing election campaign, Bragg's own partisan status and the pettiness of the crimes in question, that have been stretched to their very limit in an obviously desperate attempt to make sth stick... I think it's not that obvious that Bragg is just some impartial prosecutor here merely doing his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

If a mass murderer (say, Kyle Rittenhouse) decided to run, there would be much more scrutiny on his actions that night. And if they find some forgotten law that he broke including minor stuff like parking on a handicap spot or that he was behind in his mandatory car service etc, they will prosecute him for that.

---

Woah, woah, hold your horses. Rittenhouse is not a mass murderer, he is not even a murderer. He was indicted for murder in a very politically charged case, tried and, here is the most important bit, found not guilty. So not quite sure how this example helps your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

This man was the elected USA president... and he broke the law. If he had not broken the law then they would keep attacking him the exact same way they have been since 2015. It's not that Trump doesn't give them things to use against him. They could not prosecute before his campaign started because they didn't have enough evidence.

It totally is politically motivated. That does not mean they are prosecuting Trump unlawfully. As I said before, Trump's political aspirations obviously draw scrutiny on him. And yes, it is a good thing to hold possible presidents in higher standards.

Let me give you a different example: If Bloomberg was close to getting the nomination, there would be investigations about him, politically motivated.
And if those investigations found he was using unethical means, his political enemies, rubbing their hands in glee, would expose him. And that is a good thing. You would want to know if the person that may be elected to an important office is a criminal.

---

Well you're presenting such points in a fairly acceptable fashion. In an ideal world it would be good that way, I agree on that, that's a desirable idealistic scenario.

But, political movements, by virtue of often having all sorts of fellas drunk on emotions (can happen to anyone to fall for the hype train), tends to create scenarios where perception of certain individuals will be necessarily skewed to the what is necessary for political strategy first, with all the elaborated propaganda machines paid for in millions. Hence the term "political season" being a heavy one.

In such events, people tend to get fairly emotional and in hate/love type of dynamics towards politicians. Things get more black and white. Revenge-Politics are a thing aswell.

Is this the optimal timing to expect a cold minded analysis on court? Even if one assumes the Judge is very professional and retains his calm in this, on this case the weight is on the Grand Jury.

Point being, person in question could've have charges against him any time in the last 8 years, but to have them released on the same day as DeSantis gets 500 pages document of dirt on his personal life released, by a politically connected movement makes things look like there's more to it than it seems at first glance..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

The bad thing would be if one's political enemies were making up allegations and those allegations landed one in prison.

---

This is what is worriesome. In many third world countries political opponents of current political strongman get arrested for having dared to show opposition, and all kind of bureocratic legalistic paperwork is found one way or another.

Not saying we're there, but what guarantee is there that we're not risking getting closer to that?
Or normalizing political police, often the right hand of political dynamics that are not seen very well in the western regimes.

I mean things could go well and ideal, regardless it's a tradeoff with risks. I have faith the competent authorities will manage things well.
As long as people accept the due dilligence required afterwards, it's all alright.
One just gotta wonder if we won't just get more complaining ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alastor

Allegedly broke the law. And considering who Trump is, the current circumstance of an ongoing election campaign, Bragg's own partisan status and the pettiness of the crimes in question, that have been stretched to their very limit in an obviously desperate attempt to make sth stick... I think it's not that obvious that Bragg is just some impartial prosecutor here merely doing his job.

---

So it really is just "isn't it convenient that..."

Do you have ANY direct evidence that there was political motivation or malfeasance; i.e. that Trump would NOT be indicted if not for broader political reasons? Is it really just your personal interpretation of perceived timings (it's way too early for the 2024 election cycle, btw) or your understanding of the "pettiness" of the crime?

“Do you have any proof Trump wouldn’t be indicted for misdemeanors after running for president again if he wasn’t being accused of rigging the 2016 election for the millionth time?”

The absolute state of the cope. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian

“Do you have any proof Trump wouldn’t be indicted for misdemeanors after running for president again if he wasn’t being accused of rigging the 2016 election for the millionth time?”

The absolute state of the cope. Lol

---

Ah yes, yet another iteration of the "deep state" conspiracy theory.

I guess that you didn't read the indictment. Trump and his employees conspired to submit false financial statements (a crime) and then conspired to cover it up (another crime).

This would have you or I charged and convicted within a month, but then we don't have rich daddies and Rs next to our names.

Ok. Feel free to cite the election laws Trump is being charged with breaking, or at least which ones he was conspiring to break by “falsifying business records.” And when you do, call Bragg and let him know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alastor

Woah, woah, hold your horses. Rittenhouse is not a mass murderer, he is not even a murderer. He was indicted for murder in a very politically charged case, tried and, here is the most important bit, found not guilty. So not quite sure how this example helps your point.

---

Noooooooope. He is a mass murderer that was exonerated by the legal system for killing those people. Being found no guilty means that killing those men is not considered a crime, not that it is not considered a mass murder. So... nope, I will let my horses run free like the wind.
How this example helps my point: As I said, if Rittenhouse decided to run, there would be much more scrutiny on what he did that night. And if they found something to stick on him, they would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian

Ok. Feel free to cite the election laws Trump is being charged with breaking, or at least which ones he was conspiring to break by “falsifying business records.” And when you do, call Bragg and let him know.

---

The indictment is freely available. Have you been ordered by Carlson not to read it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict

The indictment is freely available. Have you been ordered by Carlson not to read it?

---

You should have no problem citing the election law Trump conspired to break then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alhoon

Noooooooope. He is a mass murderer that was exonerated by the legal system for killing those people. Being found no guilty means that killing those men is not considered a crime, not that it is not considered a mass murder. So... nope, I will let my horses run free like the wind.
How this example helps my point: As I said, if Rittenhouse decided to run, there would be much more scrutiny on what he did that night. And if they found something to stick on him, they would.

---

Murder is an unlawful killing, usually with premeditation or malice aforethought.
If it was not, by your own words "a crime" then it was not murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infidel144

Murder is an unlawful killing, usually with premeditation or malice aforethought.
If it was not, by your own words "a crime" then it was not murder.

---

Oh, you are right. According to the dictionary, murder is unlawful killing.

OK then, a mass killer.