Trump Indicted In Georgia

[teetoppz28]

So if Trump wins in 2024 wouldn't it make it all moot of trying to overturn an election?

But many MAGAts think tRump *IS* currently the president... Wouldn't that make him ineligible to run for a third term?

[audiophile]

LOL

[Matt]

Does America really want to re-litigate 2020 for the next year and a half?

It's almost like FIRED President TRUMP could unilaterally make it stop.

You mean he can drop out and face the music?

Yes.

[bmw]

Why should he drop out? He's leading in the Republican primary polls, and by a mile.

[teetoppz28]

Why should he drop out? He's leading in the Republican primary polls, and by a lot.

FIFY

[Matt]

You do see the irony here, don't you? The entirety of every case against Trump is one giant conspiracy theory.

But you must agree that justice should not wait because the accused has other plans, no matter what those plans are (running for president, taking a vacation, committing more crimes, etc.)?

No, I don't agree as I believe there are exceptions. Being a past President as well as the leading candidate for one of the two major parties is one of those exceptions.

You do at least realize that this is unprecedented, right? Even our founding fathers recognized that there needed to be exceptions - hence, why they gave the President broad pardoning powers.

You must be joking now... tRump has done absolutely nothing wrong in ANY of the cases brought forth? It's all just conspiracy? Makes me wonder if you've actually read the indictments? Prosecutors don't bring charges if they have zero evidence.

As far as exceptions, I guess tRump was right: he COULD shoot someone in Times Square and the MAGAts would still believe he's innocent and vote for him, because he's a former president and is above the law...

You misunderstood me, re: "one giant conspiracy." What I meant was that Trump is being accused of having participated in one giant conspiracy (ie, to overturn the election).

And when I talk about exceptions, I'm referring to instances where what is good for the country is a consideration that outweighs "justice" for the conduct of one individual. What I'm telling you is that throwing Trump in prison would be a net negative for the country, and for a lot of reasons.

It's astounding that you think Trump winning again is NOT a net negative for the country. It's interesting that you also mention the founding fathers - Trump is EXACTLY the type of person the founding fathers were trying to prevent from ever gaining power.

[Honeyman]

Ah, yes. Just a conspiracy theory.

You do see the irony here, don't you? The entirety of every case against Trump is one giant conspiracy theory.

But you must agree that justice should not wait because the accused has other plans, no matter what those plans are (running for president, taking a vacation, committing more crimes, etc.)?

No, I don't agree as I believe there are exceptions. Being a past President as well as the leading candidate for one of the two major parties is one of those exceptions.

You do at least realize that this is unprecedented, right? Even our founding fathers recognized that there needed to be exceptions - hence, why they gave the President broad pardoning powers.

This comment explains it. You believe that certain people ARE above the law.

Is Joe Biden above the law too since he fits into this category?

[bmw]

This comment explains it. You believe that certain people ARE above the law.

That's not what I said either. I said there are certain times when the country's interests outweigh the interests of prosecuting one individual. If you think I'm splitting hairs here, then fine. But I'm not suggesting that Trump or anybody else is "above the law."

Is Joe Biden above the law too since he fits into this category?

Again, your use of the phrase "above the law" aside, I have said in here (recently but I can't find it) that I do not believe Biden should be prosecuted. I have also said in the past that if Republicans had led a prosecution of Hillary after Trump won in 2016 that Trump should pardon her.

[MichMash]

What I said was that the timing of "justice" in the Trump cases has motives behind it other than justice. I firmly believe that there are people in the Biden Justice Department who are directly colluding with the prosecutors in these cases.

Considering that the U.S. election campaign cycle seems to start in earnest roughly six months after each presidential election, if you need to wait for a lull in campaigning and electioneering so the timing of "justice" doesn't seem premeditated, then no case would ever get filed. This issue of "timing of justice" is a figment of your imagination. You can say that you want it because it's the only way to be fair to the defendant, but you know deep down that the timing you crave just isn't possible with our seemingly-constant election cycle. Regarding a Trump indictment, if I were to ask you the question, "If not now, when?", you'd have no answer.

Prosecutors and investigators have to do their due diligence, and courts have their schedules, and you know you'd want everything to be done thoroughly and by the book. It takes time, always. But with your flawed concept of "timing," this diligence would either be needlessly rushed (and you'd complain about the sloppy rushed work), or done with deliberate pacing (which you say exposes "motives other than justice"). So, there's no clear solution in your flawed concept.

Unless of course, you just don't trust the system, which it seems you don't. Best to keep your nose clean, then, and avoid the system altogether. But where's the fun in that, eh?

[bmw]

It's astounding that you think Trump winning again is NOT a net negative for the country.

But Trump winning again is not for me personally to decide - that is for the voters to decide. Which is a fact that you keep overlooking over and over and over again. If that is a net negative for the country, then the voters will vote for somebody else.

It's interesting that you also mention the founding fathers - Trump is EXACTLY the type of person the founding fathers were trying to prevent from ever gaining power.

I would suggest that even moreso than Trump, a number of more recent Democrat presidents are the type of people the founding fathers feared ever gaining power, but that's another conversation entirely.

[Deleted User 9015]

Clinton is widely regarded as governing in a manner similar to that of a moderate republican. Obama’s biggest policy “wins” were similar to policies pushed by conservative republicans in the past.

Just stop with the weirdness.

[Honeyman]

This comment explains it. You believe that certain people ARE above the law.

That's not what I said either. I said there are certain times when the country's interests outweigh the interests of prosecuting one individual. If you think I'm splitting hairs here, then fine. But I'm not suggesting that Trump or anybody else is "above the law."

No, that's exactly what you said.

Who is to determine these "certain times when the country's interests outweigh the interests of prosecution"? You?

The laws are the laws. They should be enforced for everybody equally.

[teetoppz28]

This comment explains it. You believe that certain people ARE above the law.

That's not what I said either. I said there are certain times when the country's interests outweigh the interests of prosecuting one individual. If you think I'm splitting hairs here, then fine. But I'm not suggesting that Trump or anybody else is "above the law."

No, that's exactly what you said.

Who is to determine these "certain times when the country's interests outweigh the interests of prosecution"? You?

The laws are the laws. They should be enforced for everybody equally.

Exactly. And enforced when the need arises, not when it's convenient for the accused.

[bmw]

I hope you're not both suggesting that the laws are, in fact, enforced equally against everyone in this country.

[bmw]

Who is to determine these "certain times when the country's interests outweigh the interests of prosecution"? You?

At least with regards to the federal laws - that is up to the President; hence, why he/she has broad pardoning powers. Joe Biden could shut legally shut down the federal prosecutions right now if he wanted to.