The verdict is in in the Trump trial.

[Luvnit2]

"Oh at this point I am convinced of his reelection, and I don't think it has that much to do with any of this. When you say they have a point though, I have to say that I do not see anyone from Trump world make this Bush comparison to begin with, also not Trump himself. You seem to care more about it than they do. And fairness, to me that is a difficult concept here. How is it fair that a current or former president gets away with anything a normal citizen would not get away with."

I think every politician is a crook, always has been and will be crooks including our POTUS.

All have gotten away with crimes in recent history going back to Clinton. Yet, it is Trump indicted over a misdemeanor turned into a felony. As for the number of counts, they repeat the same alleged offense 34 times. They took a state crime and turned into a federal crime, which is one of main reasons it will never hold upon appeal. They filed in extremely liberal NY and NYC in an area that did not vote for Trump.

Based on the reaction after the verdict, it appears voters feel Trump was politically persecuted. It is not only Trump supporters upset, but also liberals and Independents.

Time will tell if this or any conviction holds up once appealed by Trump. If it is overturned, in my opinion it makes Democrats look very bad and yes at some point I see a boomerang effect. I hope when that happens liberals remember who threw the first punch.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2024, 09:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: You don't have to convince me on any of that, maybe I'm willing to exclude Afghanistan a little (the world pretty much understood and backed up that war in its beginnings at least) and maybe I'm a little less harsh on Liz since she was not directly involved, but then again maybe not that much. It's true, Mr. Igor Dabbeljuh and his Frankenstein are despicable and did not face justice for their deeds, which btw. includes lying to the world about weapons of mass destruction (I personally don't know why Colin Powell ever was forgiven too, but whatever).

Powell was forgiven because that moment aside he was a man of integrity who was universally respected.  I also think it was clear that he had profound regrets about his role in the Iraq war.  Colin Powell would have been an amazing POTUS, it's really a shame what happened to him.

Quote:The huge problem I have with setting this as some kind of everlasting precedent is that this would mean that every president has to enjoy pretty much absolute immunity for life for everything then. If used in the manner you use it, there's no logical reason to exclude even "red meat crimes". Trump could shoot someone every day for the rest of his life and the death count won't even come close to Iraq. Staying consistent on that, you'd have to be against prosecuting him over this hypothetical crime as well, and that to me is a fallacy, and hence so is this whole argument.

You're actually helping my point here.  Why is Trump the first POTUS they ever went after?  You and Bel already essentially said it, he went against the norms.  Prior to the 2020 elections what did Trump do that was all that bad?  Talk a bunch of shit?  Say mean things?  By your own admission Trump's malfeasance, even post 2020, is dwarfed by W's, yet Obama didn't do shit to W, despite rather loud calls to do so.  Why the distinction?  Why the radical shift in precedence?  That's what every Trump supporter, and even many people in the iddle are asking and the answer is rather important.

Quote:I'd rather argue that just because principles were broken before, it should not mean that the principles just count for nothing any longer. The other thing, and I'm aware you do not like that argument, is still that the instances do not compare all that well. The Bush one is an enormous moral failing, the other one is a private misdemeanor, these are not the same. What would have happened if Mr. Dabbeljuh was caught calling in favors like finding him votes to win the election, would he have gotten away with that too? What if he falsified business records or kept classified documents? He did not break these kinds of laws, and in fact I don't really know how domestic laws tackle an unjustified war to begin with. It was within his legal rights as president to march into Iraq after Congress backed it up, after all, as horrible as this decision was.

The problem is you don't have to make anything up for W to have potentially done, he's already likely the worst offender in US history, definitely recent history.  Yet he's now a lovable buffoon.  So going forward does every POTUS come under the same extreme scrutiny as Trump?  Does every prior administration get dragged over the coals and every wrongdoing exposed prosecuted to the extent of the law?  Or do we go back to business as usual?  Do you really think the former is likely? 

Quote:Oh at this point I am convinced of his reelection, and I don't think it has that much to do with any of this. When you say they have a point though, I have to say that I do not see anyone from Trump world make this Bush comparison to begin with, also not Trump himself. You seem to care more about it than they do. And fairness, to me that is a difficult concept here. How is it fair that a current or former president gets away with anything a normal citizen would not get away with.

No one else has to make the exact point for it to be valid or for the concept not to resonate with people.  Bush is an extreme example, most people focus their attention on the Clinton's, a viable, albeit lesser example, for obvious reasons.  But the concept is the same.

[hollodero]

(06-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Powell was forgiven because that moment aside he was a man of integrity who was universally respected.  I also think it was clear that he had profound regrets about his role in the Iraq war.  Colin Powell would have been an amazing POTUS, it's really a shame what happened to him.

Well, I for one am just not able to put that moment aside. It makes him complicit. A man of integrity has to have integrity without exceptions, has to act differently in that moment, step away, call out the BS, anything. Instead he lied to the world, aiming for other countries to declare war. It's nice that he has regrets over this, but as POTUS? How could any other world leader ever trust him again.
But whatever, this is not about him and I get that most Americans like him. But sorry, I can not.

(06-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're actually helping my point here.  Why is Trump the first POTUS they ever went after?  You and Bel already essentially said it, he went against the norms.  Prior to the 2020 elections what did Trump do that was all that bad?  Talk a bunch of shit?  Say mean things?

Well there's that and also him running fraudulent universities, fraudulent charities, getting his money from a known money laundering entity, trying to pressure Ukraine into announcing fake investigations into Joe Biden, having a russian plant run his campaign for free, having an advisor coordinate the Hillary email dump with Assange, trying to get McGahn to destroy documents, firing Comey over an investigation he did not want to go on... and then some.

(06-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By your own admission Trump's malfeasance, even post 2020, is dwarfed by W's, yet Obama didn't do shit to W, despite rather loud calls to do so.  Why the distinction?  Why the radical shift in precedence?  That's what every Trump supporter, and even many people in the iddle are asking and the answer is rather important.

For one, it's the right thing to do. I want to exclude the whole hush money affair from this assessment, I still rather have that case not see the light of day. But pressuring state secretaries to find votes to overturn election results, running fake elector schemes and keeping classified documents and lying about it should get anyone in trouble.
And yes, you can always bring up Dabbeljuh and rightfully claim that everything pales in comparison. I feel you kinda avoided my question of what really follows from that very logic though. In the end, it would mean that every POTUS effectively should have immunity for life as long as what he did is less bad than an unjustified war, which is pretty much everything one can think of. What if Trump shot someone on fifth avenue? Could he just point to Bush and say he's unfairly persecuted since Bush got away with causing way more deaths? If you're consistent on this, you would have to say so. Trump or Biden or any POTUS could kill off a small village and still should face no consequences. That's what your logic inevitably leads to, except if you allow some amendments of your own.

(06-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem is you don't have to make anything up for W to have potentially done, he's already likely the worst offender in US history, definitely recent history.  Yet he's now a lovable buffoon.

To be clear, I find that to be highly irritating as well. How the media fell in love with him for he was so sweet with Michelle Obama and painted a soldier. I'm certainly not defending that, it also does not really factor into the overall evaluation. My point still would be that a morally reprehensible offense still does not automatically translate into a prosecutable offense. Which sure is unsatisfying, I would have liked to see Bush being held responsible in Den Haag or in front of any court, but that was not in the cards. But again, that can imho not mean that every POTUS now faces absolute immunity, even when doing otherwise is in the cards.

(06-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So going forward does every POTUS come under the same extreme scrutiny as Trump?  Does every prior administration get dragged over the coals and every wrongdoing exposed prosecuted to the extent of the law?  Or do we go back to business as usual?  Do you really think the former is likely? 

Probably not, though I'd sure wish it was. To some extent, I think that is because there will probably never be another president that acts so brazenly stupid and shows so little respect for the rule of law. Bush was cleverer in that regard, he never attacked the judicial system, never asked for total immunity, did not talk about rigged elections, did not brag about avoiding taxes, did not demand personal loyalty from SC judges and everyone, and all that stuff. That imho is a particular problem with Trump, that his misdeeds (again, excluding the hush money case) are so impudent, so much in the open that not prosecuting him over it would be a devastating sign for many. If you can not even touch him over asking to find him votes to overturn an election, than he appears untouchable. That to me is another distinction to Bush, that it is not that obvious what to actually prosecute him for. Starting the war in Iraq was not illegal, after all. There might be lots of things you can use, but imho they are not that clear-cut - except of course in the court of public, or our, opinion.

(06-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one else has to make the exact point for it to be valid or for the concept not to resonate with people.  Bush is an extreme example, most people focus their attention on the Clinton's, a viable, albeit lesser example, for obvious reasons.  But the concept is the same.

Well, if any Clinton did anything wrong, I'm all for prosecuting them too. With Bill, there'd actually be some stuff and yes, I'd rather see him being tried for perjury and a plethora of sexual harassment crimes then having him and Trump be worry-free, and I'd rather see one of them tried than none of them. With Hillary, eh, I don't know how illegal her deeds really were and many folks looked very hard for many years. Seems to me nothing amounts to trying to overthrow an election result by pressuring people to find her votes.