Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
Heisman Winner [120808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54907
Joined: 6/24/09
|
This is BS! If the rival party’s DOJ is going after the
2
Aug 28, 2023, 2:13 PM
|
|
the incumbent’s Number One opponent, they ought to go ahead and Git R Dun early in the campaign season, IMHO…
https://apple.news/AMPhj8a-vTUqeztd9z9fHKw
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4096
Joined: 6/24/23
|
Re: This is BS! If the rival party’s DOJ is going after the
5
5
Aug 28, 2023, 2:15 PM
|
|
Maybe Trump broke the law and it isn't all political?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22673
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Name a President that hasn’t..
1
Aug 29, 2023, 10:59 PM
|
|
Obama killed American citizens on foreign soil. Bush and Clinton went to war without Congressional approval.
But those aren’t as bad as Trump being an outsider rocking the system.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4946]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4962
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: This is BS! If the rival party’s DOJ is going after the
2
Aug 28, 2023, 2:18 PM
|
|
This isn't meant to bring him to justice, it's meant to insure he gets the nomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3041]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3189
Joined: 2/3/23
|
Re: This is BS! If the rival party’s DOJ is going after the
1
Aug 28, 2023, 2:26 PM
|
|
You’re thinking they don’t believe Trump can beat Newsome or whoever the democrat is?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7409]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9937
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: This is BS! If the rival party’s DOJ is going after the
Aug 29, 2023, 10:42 PM
|
|
I think that the Democrats WANT US to believe that Trump’s nomination as the Republican candidate for POTUS will mean victory for the Democrats.
Axiom: Anything that the Democrats want us to believe … shouldn’t be believed.
Democrats know that Trump is more of an Independent than as an establishment Republican. Had he been an establishment Republican, then he would not have won the bulk of ‘blue dog’ Democrat votes … which led to his surprise victory in 2016.
The Democrats know (they are much better at understanding how politics works than Republicans) that any candidate other than Trump will not be trusted by ‘blue dog’ Democrats. The Republicans cannot win a general election without this block.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17527]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14405
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Well at 6’3” and 215 lbs., Trump is a lot like a professional athlete. Trial dates…
1
Aug 28, 2023, 2:26 PM
|
|
aren’t set around their season’s schedule.
Sooner is better but his lawyers need more time to maximize billable hours.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16849
Joined: 9/1/12
|
Re: Well at 6’3” and 215 lbs., Trump is a lot like a professional athlete. Trial dates…
Aug 28, 2023, 4:47 PM
|
|
Well, Trump did share this real photo when he was in office. Seems legit.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47961]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44624
Joined: 9/5/02
|
Trump can ask for an earlier date if he wants it.
4
Aug 28, 2023, 2:31 PM
|
|
Several years ago, President pro tempore of the Senate, Ted Stevens (R - Alaska), was indicted in DC. He demanded and received a speedy trial (so he could campaign for reelection) in a matter of weeks wherein he was acquitted! A jury of DC (read Democrat) residents acquitted a GOP politician.
https://rollcall.com/2014/10/28/recalling-the-injustice-done-to-sen-ted-stevens-commentary/Recalling the Injustice Done to Sen. Ted Stevens | Commentary - Roll Call Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was among the more powerful men in Washington exactly six years ago, as he wound down his seventh term and began a run for likely re-election. He was the longest-serving Senate Republican in history and his reputation among those who knew him well was impeccable. According to former Secretary of […]
If Donald Trump were so convinced of his innocence, he could do the same. Of course, he, like everyone else with a brain, knows he will be found guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34247]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33739
Joined: 9/13/99
|
They should have brought the charges a year ago.
2
Aug 28, 2023, 2:31 PM
|
|
I haven't seen a clear explanation about what took so long. I saw an article from as early as May 2021 asking why he hadn't been indicted yet.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47961]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44624
Joined: 9/5/02
|
I think this is on Merrick Garland who took way to long
2
Aug 28, 2023, 2:33 PM
|
|
but, also, the House Committee took too long as well. I can't see a reason that Smith wasnt appointed in 2021
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25181]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43206
Joined: 7/31/10
|
It's fairly clear... The Election.***
2
Aug 28, 2023, 2:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [120808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54907
Joined: 6/24/09
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32056]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37300
Joined: 11/22/03
|
You gotta also consider that Trump admin...
1
Aug 28, 2023, 3:09 PM
|
|
WANTED to delay as much as possible. Let's not pretend they were not roadblocking all along the way. In my opinion...Trump's best shot at not being indicted was if the AG was too concerned about impact on election season.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7409]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9937
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: You gotta also consider that Trump admin...
Aug 28, 2023, 7:48 PM
|
|
Of course the potential defense in any potential indictment wishes that the calling of a Grand Jury and the subsequent possible indictment be postponed as much as possible.
It also was not the Trump administration that had sought to have indictments delayed; Trump was out of office by that time. (Of course you knew that; this isn’t a shot at you. It’s just a small point of clarification that is relevant because Trump did not announce his candidacy for 2024 POTUS until Nov. 2022.)
Therefore, Garland’s delayed indictment of Trump until summer 2023 looks like and smells like it has a political motivation.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32056]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37300
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I think you jumped to your "therefore" without much...
Aug 29, 2023, 8:03 AM
|
|
backing.
"Of course the potential defense in any potential indictment wishes that the calling of a Grand Jury and the subsequent possible indictment be postponed as much as possible."
I'm not sure that is true. I suspect it's not, but I don't have enough direct experience to know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: They should have brought the charges a year ago.
3
Aug 28, 2023, 3:08 PM
[ in reply to They should have brought the charges a year ago. ] |
|
Trump filed his papers to run for President on Nov 15 2022, and Jack Smith was appointed November 18, 2022.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34247]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33739
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: They should have brought the charges a year ago.
Aug 28, 2023, 4:15 PM
|
|
That part is appropriate: they appointed him because Trump filed his papers. It was an ethical requirement when that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: They should have brought the charges a year ago.
1
Aug 28, 2023, 4:36 PM
|
|
I think that's what he was waiting on. He knew Trump was going to run again.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34247]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33739
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: They should have brought the charges a year ago.
1
Aug 28, 2023, 4:41 PM
|
|
He meaning Garland? That might be right. Waiting looks bad though.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: They should have brought the charges a year ago.
3
Aug 28, 2023, 4:51 PM
|
|
Yes, I meant Garland. I think the end results of the trials, particularly the federal case will mark Garland as either a patient man who wanted blind justice or a political slime ball. Whether any of that's fair, who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25181]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43206
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Considering the Biden investigation, "political slime ball".***
1
Aug 28, 2023, 4:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 765
Joined: 8/3/23
|
While Trump should face charges, if he was not going
Aug 28, 2023, 7:39 PM
[ in reply to Re: They should have brought the charges a year ago. ] |
|
to run again and quietly (not so quietly) fade back into private life, it’s probably better for the country to not prosecute and divide us even further. However, since he decided to run, they became obligated to investigate/charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: While Trump should face charges, if he was not going
1
Aug 28, 2023, 8:01 PM
|
|
So, you believe it is political
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 765
Joined: 8/3/23
|
No, they are bringing him to justice appropriately.
Aug 28, 2023, 8:23 PM
|
|
However, without Trump running again, doing so would have brought more downside than upside. If he didn’t run, he couldn’t be a repeat offender. Prosecutorial discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: No, they are bringing him to justice appropriately.
1
Aug 28, 2023, 8:31 PM
|
|
If they would not have indicted him if he decided not to run for office, then it is political. The chargers may still be valid, but it would be a political decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 765
Joined: 8/3/23
|
I get what you’re saying but I disagree. I see it more as,
Aug 29, 2023, 7:18 AM
|
|
it’s not fair to the people/nation for this man to seek the same office again without having him stand trial for his actions last time he held the office. In my opinion this is “just.”
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: I get what you’re saying but I disagree. I see it more as,
1
Aug 29, 2023, 7:52 AM
|
|
That may be true, but your statement defines why it is political. He should stand trial for his actions regardless of whether or not he is running for President. There are indications that had he not run for office, he would not have been indicted (at least at the federal level). I believe this is a bit of a stain on our justice system.
Message was edited by: p6fuller®
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 765
Joined: 8/3/23
|
Ideally, yes I agree. Blind justice and all that.
1
Aug 29, 2023, 9:26 AM
|
|
You charge him, if he’s found guilty he sits in a cell instead of going back to his private life. In an ideal world, that decision only affects Trump. However practically, that decision affect many. The potential of riots, violence, and further fracturing of the nation is not worth it just to put him in a cell instead of at Mar a Lago. However, when it becomes a situation where the former president (allegedly) committed crimes, and is now trying to hold the office of President again, they’re obligated to charge him for what he did last time before he potentially holds office again. So yes it is political, but not political in the sense that they’re “going after him to keep him out of office so that the Democrats can win.” They weighed the decision off bringing him to justice vs the negatives of doing so before he decided to run and decided it’s not worth it. However when he decided to run he forced their hand.
So yes it’s political, but not in the way that most people who say “it’s all political” imply.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12591
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Ideally, yes I agree. Blind justice and all that.
Aug 29, 2023, 10:08 AM
|
|
The trials will be interesting
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7409]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9937
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Garland know election interference suits R very weak
1
Aug 28, 2023, 8:12 PM
[ in reply to While Trump should face charges, if he was not going ] |
|
The argument that Trump would not have been indicted, had Trump NOT announced his candidacy, because the Garland (at Biden’s behest) did not want to further divide the country is patently false.
If Trump had been indicted before he announced his candidacy, then claims of politically motivated prosecution would have been rendered moot. Trump supporters would not have liked it, but politically motivated prosecution for election interference purposes could not have been claimed.
Here is why Garland waited so long: He’s got very little chance of getting a conviction that will stand up on appeal.
First Dershowitz, and more recentlyJulian Epstein (former chief counsel for the Democrat party in the House Judiciary Committee), say that the Federal J6 and State of GA election interference indictments are very weak. 12th Amendment is not so categorically clear that it would represent criminal action for a political candidate to challenge an election &/or submit an alternative slate of electors. Dershowitz and Epstein both called doing so in the way that Trump had asked as being ‘weird’ … but not criminal.
Then, there is the strong odor of both indictments being politically motivated. Again, if ‘justice for all’ was the objective, then waiting a long time to indict until Trump had announced simply reeks of political motivation. Whether or not all of the media buzz that Trump would be left alone if he promised to not run suggests that the indictments are entirely motivated by political factors.
Garland’s and the establishment politicians’ hopes are now that they wear out Trump, constrain his ability to conduct a campaign, and then get beaten in the Republican primary.
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 765
Joined: 8/3/23
|
That’s like, your opinion man.***
Aug 28, 2023, 8:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17527]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14405
Joined: 12/14/98
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38687
Joined: 11/30/98
|
When should they have the trial?
Aug 28, 2023, 3:13 PM
|
|
If he became president again, y'all would be squealing that a sitting president shouldn't be put on trial.
"Squealing" is also the most accurate verb here.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4035]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8159
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: This is BS! If the rival party’s DOJ is going after the
Aug 28, 2023, 3:18 PM
|
|
You believe some people are above the law, correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 765
Joined: 8/3/23
|
Jack Smith asked for a January trial. I guess he
1
Aug 28, 2023, 7:26 PM
|
|
was trying to do Trump a solid.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22673
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Schumer told us all they would weaponize
1
Aug 29, 2023, 2:47 PM
|
|
the CIA and they did. It wasn’t a surprise if you have been listening.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
|
|