Trump Legal Troubles

[Lorewarn]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, let's say someone in their 20s commits some type of felony like burglary.  He gets caught, does his time and truly reforms himself.  He goes decades being a model citizen and contributing to his community, raises a family and becomes very successful....bla bla bla....

 

That person should be banned from running for office?

 

 

Not sure, but it's an interesting question. I have no problems with any solutions here - maybe only banned from running for federal office, or banned from the presidency, or maybe it's a time windowed thing where you need to be X amount of years removed.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Not sure, but it's an interesting question. I have no problems with any solutions here - maybe only banned from running for federal office, or banned from the presidency, or maybe it's a time windowed thing where you need to be X amount of years removed.

I'm not saying I'm against it.  I'm just don't want some major law or constitutional amendment put in place because everyone is thinking about Trump and not thinking about the unintended consequences with other situations.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not saying I'm against it.  I'm just don't want some major law or constitutional amendment put in place because everyone is thinking about Trump and not thinking about the unintended consequences with other situations.

Agreed. I don't think giving the government a means to prevent people from voting or running for office is a good idea. Democracy depends on the voters to control who should be in office.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Agreed. I don't think giving the government a means to prevent people from voting or running for office is a good idea. Democracy depends on the voters to control who should be in office.

The gov't should establish certain minimum requirements for office  - one being "not currently serving time for a felony conviction'    The govt has a responsibility to protect us from us!

[Decoy73]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

The gov't should establish certain minimum requirements for office  - one being "not currently serving time for a felony conviction'    The govt has a responsibility to protect us from us!

I agree, however I could see rogue attorney generals “manufacturing” felony charges against leading candidates of the opposite party.  So It would have to be a federal crime felony, but even then the potential for corruption would exist.  

If this country elects a felon who is in prison, we truly are doomed.   I mean, we clearly are a stupid country, but are we really that stupid?

[Lorewarn]

Manufacturing a felony charge and then getting a guilty plea out of it is a very, very, very difficult thing to do.

[BigRedBuster]

22 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

Manufacturing a felony charge and then getting a guilty plea out of it is a very, very, very difficult thing to do.

The Central Park 5 say hello. 

[Lorewarn]

40 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Central Park 5 say hello. 

 

 

I would not categorize that anywhere close to the same type of thing as what Decoy73 is proposing as a hypothetical.

[Archy1221]

Couple thoughts on the various Trump cases.  
 

Unless something new comes out, the Jan 6th case looks to be a dud.  We won’t know till all the cards are played by the investigators, but doesn’t seem likely to get a conviction based on what’s currently known.

 

The GA case, I would probably be a bit worried if I were Trump.   
 

The Documents case is looking like a slam dunk conviction at the moment and it’s all Trumps fault.   He could have avoided it all by giving the documents back that were requested.   None of the cover up charges would have taken place either.   Trump looks to be guilty on the possession of and quite possibly the obstruction/destruction of evidence charge.   No one’s above the law, even a past President/current front runner for a party and I think he will find that out soon.   
 

Looking at the last charge which he should most likely be found guilty of based on what’s been coming out, I would the rest of the board who votes Dem, how is this any different than the HRC situation?   1) She had a private email server with classified info.  2) Had aides print classified emails/documents.  We know this from Huma laptop.  3). She destroyed cell phones prior to turning them into investigators 4) she ordered a company to delete her server rather than turn it in, server gets wiped clean “like with a cloth” and nothing happens to her because she is running for President.  
 

Trump deserves any conviction he gets and everyone should acknowledge it should have played the same way with HRC years ago too.   

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

Manufacturing a felony charge and then getting a guilty plea out of it is a very, very, very difficult thing to do.

Well…we’re currently seeing it happen with Trump!!!

 

 

says about 40% of the American electorate.

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Looking at the last charge which he should most likely be found guilty of based on what’s been coming out, I would the rest of the board who votes Dem, how is this any different than the HRC situation?   1) She had a private email server with classified info.  2) Had aides print classified emails/documents.  We know this from Huma laptop.  3). She destroyed cell phones prior to turning them into investigators 4) she ordered a company to delete her server rather than turn it in, server gets wiped clean “like with a cloth” and nothing happens to her because she is running for President.  
 

Trump deserves any conviction he gets and everyone should acknowledge it should have played the same way with HRC years ago too.   

 

 

If it wasn't any different with Hillary then she should have been charged as well.

 

I'm no expert on the Clinton email controversies, but the way it's probably different is because you don't bring charges unless you can prove them and there wasn't a strong case.

 

The FBI investigated for years and eventually concluded/recommended ""that no charges are appropriate in this case... Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The State Department investigated for a long a$$ time and concluded that she "increased the risk of compromising State Department information, but "there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information"". The DOJ Inspector General investigated the how the DOJ and FBI handled their investigations and found that their conclusion, "was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents." So on and so forth.

 

Another reason it's probably different is because what Trump did was unprecedented and loud and bold - what Clinton did wasn't unprecedented and was in line with the last several people in her station, pointing to a lot of lax inadequacies related to government security. 

[Scarlet]

Intention

[commando]

18 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

If it wasn't any different with Hillary then she should have been charged as well.

 

I'm no expert on the Clinton email controversies, but the way it's probably different is because you don't bring charges unless you can prove them and there wasn't a strong case.

 

The FBI investigated for years and eventually concluded/recommended ""that no charges are appropriate in this case... Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The State Department investigated for a long a$$ time and concluded that she "increased the risk of compromising State Department information, but "there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information"". The DOJ Inspector General investigated the how the DOJ and FBI handled their investigations and found that their conclusion, "was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents." So on and so forth.

 

Another reason it's probably different is because what Trump did was unprecedented and loud and bold - what Clinton did wasn't unprecedented and was in line with the last several people in her station, pointing to a lot of lax inadequacies related to government security. 

another reason might be that trump passed a law making the punishment for the crime much more painful.    then was dumb enough to break that law.

[Decoy73]

23 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

Manufacturing a felony charge and then getting a guilty plea out of it is a very, very, very difficult thing to do.

Who said anything about a guilty plea?  

[Lorewarn]

1 minute ago, Decoy73 said:

Who said anything about a guilty plea?  

 

 

The conversation was surrounding hypothetical felons running for the presidency; to be a felon presumes being convicted.