Stormy kills Bragg case

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2024, 08:03 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I get you are not tossing me into the witch hunt group, just  do not see how anyone can believe DJT is getting a fair trial or admit the timing is suspicious at best.

Similarly, not going to argue it, because, sadly, no one ever changes their minds here and DJT is a polarizing man.

Not lumping you in the TDS group.

I'm saying there is no possibility for a trial for someone with as polarizing as Trump.  Our justice system isn't designed to handle people like him, and as much as I think he should be held accountable IF IF IF IF IF IF IF he did anything wrong, I will also admit that any jury that is justifiably representative of the US population should have at least 2 or 3 people on it who would be more likely to believe that the Browns have won 57 straight super bowls than they would believe that Donald Trump could possibly do anything dishonest.

There is no "good" time to put a president on trial, which is why people still talk about and analyze the whole Nixon thing 50+ years later.  When Trump did what he's accused of doing he was running for president, then he was president, then he was running for president, and next he will either be president or he will be running for president.  I've asked a lot of people when the "right" time to bring charges against Trump would be, and the answer I seem to get it never, because you're never supposed to bring charges against someone who is president or running for president...I assume, I feel like for a lot of people that would only apply to Trump.

As a reasonable middle of the road viewer of this when would you have suggested they put Trump on trial?  Opinions seem mixed on whether or not the president should have total immunity, but a lot of people seem to think that a president or presidential candidate should never be subject to a trial, so what is the difference?