You can’t set out to dig something up on a political opponent just bc you don’t like them or their politics. If you think it through you’ll realize why it’s unacceptableSo Trump didn't break the law?
Oh wait, he did.
And prosecutors use their discretion on who to go after all of the time. Just because Trump is a republican doesn't mean being a republican is the reason she went after him. Your argument means every politician is granted immunity. Careful what you wish for.
Does that mean as a democrat, I don't have to worry about any republican prosecutors going after me? I'll just cry about it being a partisan witch huntYou have my back?
364 million verdict against the trumpster
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
Asking him to jump over the moon would be more realistic.
This is absolutely political, but this may be the most pure form of karma I've ever seen. Trump has abused our legal system for decades all the while stiffing people by running out the clock. So many small contractors have fell victim to Trump.
Much like a pedophile getting sent to a prison where the guards let it slip to the general population what they did. Trump losing a few properties while political is the universe making things right.
Don't worry too much. The rubes will make him whole. And if he gets elected, I'm sure his friends in the middle east will more than make him whole.
Much like a pedophile getting sent to a prison where the guards let it slip to the general population what they did. Trump losing a few properties while political is the universe making things right.
Don't worry too much. The rubes will make him whole. And if he gets elected, I'm sure his friends in the middle east will more than make him whole.
Is admitting to politics being important in your decision making a vice or a virtue ?
I've always sorta of admired Mike Pence for admitting to being a "Christian, conservative, and Republican, in that order". With two out of three values being about politics, he was letting us know politics were important to him.
Of the people who come to the Cooler, how many of us are highly influenced in our positions and decision by our politics ? Why should we be surprised when the people we elect and those whom they appoint are also highly political ?
Finally, being political isn't new. What is new, is being so far apart in our political perspectives that compromise is difficult.
It was something along the lines of “I’ll shine a bright light into every corner of his dark empire”.
There’s no reasonable argument to be made that this wasn’t a political prosecution and most people don’t even try to make it.
You can use politics to advance policies, vote one way or another, etc. But not enforcement of the law. There's a reason Justitia (aka Lady Justice) is wearing a blindfold.
In theory, we want our prosecutors, law enforcement, judges, and juries to treat defendants as nameless variables and decide to act based on the legally relevant characteristics proven in court or that come about through a valid investigation (instigated by an injured party). Saying "I'm going after person X" no matter what doesn't fit within that theory.
If this were an academic exercise, I might get on board with the idea that James's comments fit one of the many definitions of "political." But it's not an academic discussion.
Too many are using "political" as a dogwhistle shortcut to suggest (wink wink) that they think labeling it as "political" proves that James was unfair to Trump for some reason. So, I'm not going to get into that. Calling it "political" does not prove either that Trump is liable or isn't.
Here's an interesting article from 2018 (not necessarily favorable to James) about what James said about Trump -- she basically said she was going to investigate his business practices.
And, the article outlines that she spoke in the context of more than 200 prior cases at that time involving Trump's businesses (including the Trump Charities case), numerous non-Trump cases she filed dealing with tenant rights and consumer rights and legal disputes with both Democrat and Republican officeholders. So, she had prior experience with not only Trump's business practices but those of others.
I know you've acknowledged that Trump might be liable in that case, but I understood your thoughts are based on the facts of the case itself, which is as it should be.
Find a prosecutor/government attorney that can be shown to satisfy that standard, and I'll show you one that (1) never ran for office as a Republican or Democrat or (2) never got appointed to be a government lawyer by a Republican or Democrat.
The only things that should matter is whether the evidence proves it and whether the defendant had a chance to defend himself.
All prosecutors/government lawyers are either Republicans or Democrats. These other appearances can't be helped.
That’s not the issue. Like many others (including the court of appeals deciding the immunity case) the important issues are not about Trump. We must not damage or even destroy the credibility of the judicial system to get Trump. Trumps financial statements were not atypical, unless the banks take mortgages on the assets, they rely on other underwriting factors. Handpicking Trump for litigation under a highly unusual application of a statute hurts all of us.
He understands just fine. He’s just to partisan to admit it.
I could honestly care less one way or the other about this case. I'm just arguing to argue.
With that said, would this be any different?
Hunter Biden's lawyers press for dismissal of gun charges by arguing they are politically motivated
Hunter Biden has again asked a judge to dismiss the federal gun case against him, arguing it is politically motivated and key evidence was tested after charges were filed.
apnews.com
Oh yes you can. Attorney General Vivek Ramaswamy is going to be on Willis, James, Jack Smith, Engoron, Chutkan like white on rice. Not to mention the entire BCF.
The Trump FBI, led by Michael Flynn, will have tails on each of them and bugs in all their properties.
We will find the dirt. These people are not smart.
Here's what Brad posted: "Saying "I'm going after person X" no matter what doesn't fit within that theory."
I've seen no claims that she said "no matter what." If you find a reliable link that says so, let me know. She said she was going to investigate him. That's all.
She ended up with a case where, according to several lawyers on this board as well as on TV, Trump didn't put up much of a defense. It's hard to claim she did something unfair to Trump, when Trump didn't seem to have a defense to what she filed. Trump's argument is just Trump screaming "witchhunt" and "kill the messenger."
I won't spend time on the ABA. It's not a state. What it says is not law,
Calling Lev Parnas this week to testify for the Republicans seems to prove your last sentence.
The only difference is no one here is saying Hunter's gun charges should be dropped based on the politically motivated prosecution.I could honestly care less one way or the other about this case. I'm just arguing to argue.
With that said, would this be any different?
Hunter Biden's lawyers press for dismissal of gun charges by arguing they are politically motivated
Hunter Biden has again asked a judge to dismiss the federal gun case against him, arguing it is politically motivated and key evidence was tested after charges were filed.
Hunter should be charged with whatever he is actually guilty of doing.
Yes. Anyone who can spell "Ramaswamy" correctly is expected to know who Lev Parnas is.
Did the prosecutor say he’s going to find something on hunter without evidence of wrongdoing? How did the gun charge come about?I could honestly care less one way or the other about this case. I'm just arguing to argue.
With that said, would this be any different?
Hunter Biden's lawyers press for dismissal of gun charges by arguing they are politically motivated
Hunter Biden has again asked a judge to dismiss the federal gun case against him, arguing it is politically motivated and key evidence was tested after charges were filed.
No prosecutor should be motivated by politics
When people become politicians, shouldn't their affairs become more open to scrutiny? And is that not a good thing? Because I think we should want our politicians to be following the very laws that they are expecting everyone else to follow. Lead by example so to speak and be an actual role model.
The first thing the opposition does when someone runs for office is comb for anything that they can use against them. Any past scandal becomes fair game and we hear about it on campaign ads. Thus, anyone running for office should understand that their life gets extra scrutiny compared to everyone else.
And I don't see how that is a bad thing. Politicians should have a clean record. We need to raise our standards if we are more upset about politicians being targeted than we are about them skirting the law.
The first thing the opposition does when someone runs for office is comb for anything that they can use against them. Any past scandal becomes fair game and we hear about it on campaign ads. Thus, anyone running for office should understand that their life gets extra scrutiny compared to everyone else.
And I don't see how that is a bad thing. Politicians should have a clean record. We need to raise our standards if we are more upset about politicians being targeted than we are about them skirting the law.
Childish. No one has a "clean record". We have all broken laws and done things we'd be highly embarrassed about if made public.
You're equating oppo research with rogue AG trying to strip a man of all his wealth. Silly.
Yes we should not be electing proven criminals into office. We should also not be combing through people's past and changing state law to find criminality if they have not been charged of anything previously.
We'd all be better off if Trump said in court , "I shouldn't get prosecuted or sued because I didn't do it and here's why," followed by a detailed, truthful, convincing parade of witnesses and documents proving Trump's innocence and rebutting his opponents. Now THAT would go a long way to bolster faith in the court system.
Instead, what we get from Trump (and all his lawyers, Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Alina etc. etc.) is: "I shouldn't be prosecuted or sued because: (1) that NY atty general made a speech about me six years ago, (2) that Georgia prosecutor had an affair and hired her boyfriend to prosecute me, (3) that federal prosecutor wasn't appointed correctly, (4) those women Carroll and Daniels are just trying to get money, (5) and everybody else in the world that's prosecuting or suing me is on a political witchhunt."
Trump is not interested in preserving the integrity of the court system or even defending himself within the court system.
You’re lost. So consumed with hyper hyper partisanship you can’t think
Has nothing to do with trump
No one changed a law to go after trump. Maybe Trump should have followed the law if he didn't want to pay the price for getting caught.
why would he do that when he can grift people by pretending to the victim?
He also thinks this route will help him win in November.
how do you feel about the possibility of him taking foreign money to pay his legal bills?
Is that ok since it would be for a republican?
It remains to be seen if it will be enough, but this stuff absolutely 100 percent helps Trump.
His poll numbers go up and the stuffshots and bowls of the world howl even louder.
Of course it does.
Who in the world is still harping harping harping on this stuff to save Giuliani's ass or Sydney Powell's ass or Lin Wood's ass or whatever other etc. etc. etc. Trump official's ass? None. This is only being raised as an issue to try to save Trump's ass. The proponents do not care about anyone else. They're true Republicans.
You and I are not that far apart really. I'm prioritizing the importance of the evidence in Trump's case and whether Trump had a fair chance to rebut the evidence (called procedure, maybe?). You seem to be prioritizing whether conduct of Trump's opponents indicates they did something bad that exceeds Trump's own bad conduct. That doesn't prove Trump is not liable or innocent.
Since you recently said you won't vote for Trump, I doubt we're really that far apart.
Homes? The guy in the video said homes? I thought Mar-a-Lago was valued as a "club" according to Trump's financials.
Oh hell. Who can keep up with Trump and his blind supporters?
No we are miles apart. Justice should be blind. And I’ll vote for trump for sure over Biden. No hesitation
But the McMurtry's of the world say they won't vote at all. Polls are not votes, even in Trump's mind.
By now, Trump's bullshit excuses must be tedious and tiring, even for you. What are today's "Republican" goals other than electing Trump? He failed at fixing the border and failed at improving the healthcare system. He doesn't even have blind support from the Supreme Court justices he ramrodded. They're not loyal to him either.
The traditional justice statue does not have a gag over her mouth. It's only a blindfold over her eyes and her mouth is not regulated. But you knew that.
(Apologies if there are nips.)
Don’t bother I’m telling you now. Biden has been the worst president in my lifetime. I’ve only posted as much a thousand times
