Trump on Trial (Trump indicted for a fourth time in Georgia. Expands his record of most indictments by a former president)

[TradeTheBeal!]

Also, you indict a guy like that when you’ve got an airtight case.  Not when the WaPo and sassy football fans think you should.

Edited May 25, 2023 by TradeTheBeal!

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

He’s a former president and current candidate with a lot of support. 
 

 

Exactly.  Rip the bandaid off.  Let's get this civil war going.  My knees aren't getting any younger.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by TheGreatBuzz

[China]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

He’s a former president and current candidate with a lot of support. 
 

 

So all the bloviation about nobody being above the law, and everybody being treated equally is bull****.  Got it.  They should come out and say that though, although they never will.

 

Edit:  And the longer they wait, the more problematic it becomes because the trial will be during the election and will they "pause" any indictments because of their "rule" about not doing things within 60 days of an election?  They've taken way too long already, and have more airtight evidence than they've had to get convictions of other people on mishandling of classified documents.

Edited May 25, 2023 by China

[tshile]

26 minutes ago, China said:

So all the bloviation about nobody being above the law, and everybody being treated equally is bull****.  Got it.

He’s not above the law. 
 

But if you don’t understand why this is handled differently idk what to tell you. 
 

it seems perfectly reasonable and right that going after a former president or a major presidential candidate has a higher bar. And he’s both. 
 

You think prosecutors care about their court record with regular stuff? It’s a running joke they won’t take cases if it has a chance of tarnishing their record. 

 

no one wants to be the prosecutor that went after a former president and failed. You can’t just be right. You have to have all of your **** together. And in a way that can handle partisan attacks and sway a jury which you are not sure what the makeup will be. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by tshile

[China]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

He’s not above the law. 
 

But if you don’t understand why this is handled differently idk what to tell you. 
 

it seems perfectly reasonable and right that going after a former president or a major presidential candidate has a higher bar. And he’s both. 

 

Oh I understand, it's political, not about the law.  But the Attorney General has said people will be treated equally, and they're not.  And the bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, China said:

 

Oh I understand, it's political, not about the law.  But the Attorney General has said people will be treated equally, and they're not.  And the bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

people in and of power get treated differently. in any other context this would be something everyone agrees with and doesn’t even need to be stated. 
 

im not sure why, just because it’s trump, you’d expect any different.

And no. The bar is “career suicide” if you don’t get this right. 

[China]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

people in and of power get treated differently. in any other context this would be something everyone agrees with and doesn’t even need to be stated. 
 

im not sure why, just because it’s trump, you’d expect any different.

And no. The bar is “career suicide” if you don’t get this right. 

 

I don't expect different because it's Trump.  I realize people in power get treated differently.  I just disagree that with that being an agreed upon way to treat people in power.  It is how it is, but not how it should be.  I can wish and hope things were different, and lament that they are not.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, China said:

I just disagree that with that being an agreed upon way to treat people in power.  It is how it is, but not how it should be.

Im not saying we agree it should be that way. 
 

im saying we agree that’s the way it is. And had always been. 

[China]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Im not saying we agree it should be that way. 
 

im saying we agree that’s the way it is. And had always been. 

 

Yes.  And BTW, your bar of "career suicide" if you don't get it right, is the political bar.  The legal bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt," if met, will preclude getting it wrong.  I trust they will get it right because DOJ is notoriously conservative, hence their 99.1% conviction rate.  I just think they could do it faster and still dot all the "i"s and cross all  the "t"s.  But I'm not there. 

 

As an aside, it seems to me they are getting bogged down in paralysis of analysis, and investigating things that maybe don't directly pertain to these charges.  My personal opinion is that they could bring indictments on the charges they have already wrapped up, and later bring superceding indictments for anything their ongoing investigation turns up.  It seems they want to do it all at once though.

[China]

Duplicate 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by China

[tshile]

1 hour ago, China said:

As an aside, it seems to me they are getting bogged down in paralysis of analysis, and investigating things that maybe don't directly pertain to these charges.  My personal opinion is that they could bring indictments on the charges they have already wrapped up, and later bring superceding indictments for anything their ongoing investigation turns up.  It seems they want to do it all at once though.

I don’t understand all the ramifications of his status. There very well may be good reasons for it. In fact if kind of assume there are - because otherwise the other options are real political interference being run, or they’re being lazy. And I don’t think either is the case. So I feel the safe assumption is the experts are trying to do a good job and it takes what it takes. 
 

The only thing that bothers me is I can’t ignore the coincidence of how things could line up with the elections. I understand, even from an objective “trump is bad and tried to overthrow and dismantle the government, the idea he could win again needs to be considered”, the appeal of liking this up with the election cycle. I would think that’s a mistake - getting too cute usually is. I prefer to believe they’re not trying to do that. 

[China]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

The only thing that bothers me is I can’t ignore the coincidence of how things could line up with the elections. I understand, even from an objective “trump is bad and tried to overthrow and dismantle the government, the idea he could win again needs to be considered”, the appeal of liking this up with the election cycle. I would think that’s a mistake - getting too cute usually is. I prefer to believe they’re not trying to do that. 

 

Yeah, I don't like how it's lining up with the election cycle.  I don't think they're doing that on purpose, but it seems to me they're dragging their feet (perhaps due to their meticulous investigation), and it's causing it to line up with the election.  I would've preferred they got things done quicker so nobody could claim they're doing it to interfere with his campaign.

 

Oh, and I truly believe Trump thought they were going to charge him much sooner, which is why he announced so early, so he could claim they were trying to interfere with his campaign.

Edited May 26, 2023 by China

[Larry]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

no one wants to be the prosecutor that went after a former president and failed.

Marcia Clark. 

[Llevron]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

Marcia Clark. 

Never heard of her 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, China said:

Oh, and I truly believe Trump thought they were going to charge him much sooner, which is why he announced so early, so he could claim they were trying to interfere with his campaign.

100% there is no doubt. 
 

it also actually complicates the investigations. 
 

if you recall, before he announced, there was an announcement about one of the investigative teams beefing up staff in anticipation of him announcing, so that they could deal with all the extra stuff involved in that. 
 

[skinsmarydu]

7 hours ago, Llevron said:

Never heard of her 

She's the prosecutor who lost the OJ trial. 

[tshile]

Clark actually salvaged a career as a writer after the case. No idea how successful she was but it seems she made good money. Her book deal on the OJ case was reportedly over 4 million. 
 

So, not an awful way to end your professional life. But I doubt it’s what she wanted or really planned for herself. 
 

she never tried another case again. 

[The Evil Genius]

12 hours ago, Larry said:

Marcia Clark. 

 

Ken Starr made a huge amount of money in his post failed whitewater bull**** investigation career. 

[skinsmarydu]

51 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Ken Starr made a huge amount of money in his post failed whitewater bull**** investigation career. 

Yup.  See: Baylor University, Art Briles, etc. 

I found a copy of The Starr Report not too long ago...must've been my husband's...it went by the way of Waste Management.  

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 hours ago, tshile said:

people in and of power get treated differently. in any other context this would be something everyone agrees with and doesn’t even need to be stated. 
 

im not sure why, just because it’s trump, you’d expect any different.

And no. The bar is “career suicide” if you don’t get this right. 

 

 

It's also taking the chance of empowering a fascist politician who tried to overthrow our democratic elections and instill himself as president if you **** it up in any way.

 

They had "more than enough evidence" against O.J. and Casey Anthony, too. At least according to public opinion, which is the only thing that matters in situations like this lol...

[Chachie]

15 hours ago, Larry said:

Marcia Clark. 

 

 

Anybody heard from Robert Mueller? 

[The Evil Genius]

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[LadySkinsFan]

Of course he disclosed secrets, he did so when first in office when he invited Lavrov into the Oval Office alone. And I'm sure he did in Helsinki to Putin. ****ing spy.

[Califan007 The Constipated]