05-30-2022, 03:47 PM
(05-27-2022, 08:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Well no, I don't think Trump obstruction charges should take precedence over 1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep. A direct attempt to subvert the valid results of a presidential election originating within the Executive, and coordinating RNC members in seven states with sitting members of Congress, is a FAR MORE SERIOUS CRIME with far more serious consequences for democratic government.
The results of Trump obstruction should have been impeachment. Trump is past that now. If charged now, the result would at best be fines and perhaps some imprisonment, what others have gotten for much less obstruction. Further, as J and W explain, that prosecutors have allowed the SOL to run out on some of the MR’s charges doesn’t mean they will allow the more serious ones to elapse. So it's a bit premature to write that off, and illogical to assume that absence of prosecution is somehow evidence the obstruction didn't occur.
Again, they can do both. They can indict and they can continue to investigate and work to prosecuting 1/6 and GBS.
If they have the evidence AND they feel that it is enough to convict, there's nothing stopping them from indicting him.
The ONLY reason to impeach a past President is to stop him from running again. If impeachment is no longer an option, then indicting him a getting a conviction will accomplish the same.
Maybe they will indict him on some of the charges with sol's expiring later. But so far, about 1/2 of them have either or are going to expire.
Quote:What I "literally" said was this:
"There is a statute of limitations on the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations as well—much shorter than any MR charges against Trump. If the Republicans win Congress in 2022, the Republican Party leadership will end investigations into the Republican Party leadership. "
The second statement defines what I meant by the first. It explains why the Dems have a short time in which to finish these investigations. That's how I "conveyed my point." It's like you read the two sentences, set together in a paragraph, as if they had no relation to one another--as if the first were a claim about the law and second about an altogether different topic.
It's only clear to you because you know what you were trying to say. Had you put 'statute of limitations' in quotes and/or started your second statement with "And that statute is..." or something similar, it would be more clear.
But here we are yet again taking another diversion.
Quote:What the Clinton campaign "wanted" is pretty clear from Hilary's tweet. "Federal authorities" should investigate the server communication between the Trump server and Alpha Bank, hopefully finding out why Trump is so soft on Putin.
No, the tweet came well after one of their lawyers, Michael Sussman, went to the FBI "as a concerned private citizen" and told them about the Alpha Bank server. He's currently on trial for lying to them. What Clinton wanted and got was an October Surprise.
Quote:Also, you seem to assume there is something inherently unethical in reporting on "incomplete" investigations. Yet that often is in the public interest. If a Trump lawyer is arrested for fraud, journalists should not wait until the trial is over to report that. If that lawyer claims he arranged hush money for one of Trump's porn star sexual partners, that is also legitimate news before court findings, especially if the checks are there for the court to view.
No, it's not unethical to report on an incomplete investigation. What is unethical is the way in which the article was written. Don't be naive, you know exactly what the writer was after.
