|
Post by YankeeFan on Apr 24, 2024 13:30:45 GMT
Democratic elected officials have come up with a plan to bleed Trump of money and to keep him off the campaign/fund raising trail.
That’s a conspiracy to interfere with an election.
And they’re open about it. They think they’re brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by oop on Apr 24, 2024 14:02:24 GMT
It’s pretty obvious that this case has no merit. It should be a real wake up call to folks that we are crossing a line where we are charging political opponents with crimes. But the hatred for Trump blinds too many people. Even Mitt Romney; who knows better, made some dumb comment that had nothing to do with the actual question of criminality. LMAO. No, it isn't obvious at all that the case has no merit. If you want to argue that he has been overcharged, that a valid discussion, but this ridiculous implication that he is somehow an innocent being persecuted by his political opponents is laughable even by your low standards.
|
|
|
Post by oop on Apr 24, 2024 14:03:10 GMT
Democratic elected officials have come up with a plan to bleed Trump of money and to keep him off the campaign/fund raising trail. That’s a conspiracy to interfere with an election. And they’re open about it. They think they’re brilliant. How dare he be held accountable for his inappropriate and illegal actions!
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Apr 24, 2024 14:12:35 GMT
The feds and the previous Manhattan DA passed on this case.
Then the statute of limitations ran out.
So, the current DA, a partisan Dem, had to invent a whole new premise for even trying the case.
And, you don’t even have to believe me…
Find me an article by a liberal legal journalist who thinks this is a good case.
Only the potential makeup of a Manhattan jury makes this case possible.
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Apr 24, 2024 14:31:59 GMT
It’s pretty obvious that this case has no merit. It should be a real wake up call to folks that we are crossing a line where we are charging political opponents with crimes. But the hatred for Trump blinds too many people. Even Mitt Romney; who knows better, made some dumb comment that had nothing to do with the actual question of criminality. Appeal to authority.
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Apr 24, 2024 15:00:38 GMT
I have found the ongoing analysis of National Review's Andrew McCarthy (no Trumpist he) to be quite compelling, but I know many will hear "National Review" and/or "Andrew McCarthy" and stop right there. This guy Eric Posner, however, seems to be echoing McCarthy's arguments, albeit in a less-agitated fashion:
|
|
|
Post by gordonbombay on Apr 24, 2024 15:05:30 GMT
Yeah cuz if there’s one thing we’ve learned about Trump voters its that they’d DEFINITELY abandon him due to scandal
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Apr 24, 2024 15:31:01 GMT
It’s pretty obvious that this case has no merit. It should be a real wake up call to folks that we are crossing a line where we are charging political opponents with crimes. But the hatred for Trump blinds too many people. Even Mitt Romney; who knows better, made some dumb comment that had nothing to do with the actual question of criminality. Appeal to authority. Who is making the argument that this is a good case?
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Apr 24, 2024 15:43:25 GMT
Who is making the argument that this is a good case? I have no idea. I don't really follow the news, other than baseball. But you have called out people before for "appeal to authority" arguments, and that's what you were making here.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Apr 27, 2024 14:17:35 GMT
The SCOTUS arguments, and the hypotheticals raised by the liberal Justices, are funny. "Are you saying he could just order the killing a political opponent, and that would be an official act, that could not be prosecuted?" It's almost like President Obama did not target and kill an American citizen, with no judicial review. Obama followed guidance prepared for, and approved by, Obama. His attorney general argued that judicial review was not necessary: “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
The conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the Executive Branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history.www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-northwestern-university-school-lawWhich means the entire argument here is that the President just needs a compliant AG in order to do whatever he wants.
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Apr 27, 2024 15:32:52 GMT
The president needs total immunity because if he/she fears prosecution at the end of their term, they might try to unlawfully stay in office via, say, an attempted insurrection.
All the LOLZ.
|
|
|
Post by gordonbombay on Apr 27, 2024 15:52:35 GMT
Equating assassinating a domestic political rival with a drone strike an enemy combatant that happens to be a US citizen is not a good faith argument
Almost like each circumstance is different, needs to be judged on its own merit, and hypotheticals are stupid
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Apr 27, 2024 15:59:53 GMT
Equating assassinating a domestic political rival with a drone strike an enemy combatant that happens to be a US citizen is not a good faith argument Almost like each circumstance is different, needs to be judged on its own merit, and hypotheticals are stupid Sure. Until you and the Attorney General determine that their political opponent is a “threat to democracy”.
|
|
|
Post by gordonbombay on Apr 27, 2024 16:28:55 GMT
No reasonable person would believe such a thing.
We had these arguments about enhanced interrogation with Bush. His legal team engineered it to be legal in their eyes, but many believed otherwise. He did not face charges. Not should he have.
But the “gee willikers my AG said it was OK” defense doesnt and cant apply to everything. Obviously.
And aren’t Trump’s AG’s on record saying they told him not to pursue overturning the election?
|
|
|
Post by Elderly man, very poor memory on Apr 27, 2024 17:39:16 GMT
This New York case kinda sounds like a synthetic CDO from the bad old days gone by ... a single charge that would ordinarily be a misdemeanor has been elevated to 34 felony charges (with a reset of the statute of limitations) because, the prosecution alleges, a conspiracy was engaged in to pursue a crime* that's ... a misdemeanor. The prosecutor said Tuesday that his team's theory "is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016.” *§17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. One could make the argument this is exactly what Bragg is doing, no? Just asking.
|
|