Trump Tiddly Trump Trump

[Jamie123]

Donald Trump is a convicted felon.

He may also, for all I know, be a "very innocent man".

However, there are many other convicted felons who claim to be "very innocent men". But are their claims of innocence alone going to get them out of prison? Not on your nelly!

Why should Trump be any different? Shouldn't the President Elect be setting a good example, instead of trusting that the rules which apply to "ordinary people" (whether guilty or innocent) don't apply to him?

Perhaps I'm an incurable romantic, but I'm still hoping that the sentencing goes ahead, and that the judge tosses every argument based on "he's the President" straight into the wastepaper bin, and gives Trump exactly the same sentence any non-President Elect would have gotten for the same crimes.

Of course, it Trump successfully appeals the verdict then that sentence should quite rightly be annulled. But if the verdict is set aside now simply "coz he's the president" it is hard to see how Trump, the Republican Party or the US system of justice can have any credibility ever again.

Edited November 6 by Jamie123

[Vort]

In the US, governmental power is divided into three camps: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The Executive branch has the power of policing, and the President is literally the chief executive. You cannot try a sitting president unless you remove him from office first. This is what it means to "impeach" a president (or anyone else); it means the Legislative branch finds the president guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors", which allows them to begin the process of removing the president from office. At that point, the now ex-president can be tried by the Judicial branch.

Trump will be the president, and with a Republican House and Senate, will almost certainly not be removed from office, or even impeached for at least his first two years.

I don't know how closely you have followed the Trump saga. The authority who pursued Trump's New York state conviction was very literally elected on the promise that he would do exactly that, come hell or high water. The jury did not even agree on what Trump's supposed crimes were; they simply agreed that he did something or other illegal, and the judge found that to be good enough for a conviction. Trump may well have been guilty of some criminal conduct or other, but the trial he faced in New York was a kangaroo court and pure, unadulterated political theater.

Edited November 7 by Vort

[Jamie123]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

Trump may well have been guilty of some criminal conduct or other, but the trial he faced in New York was a kangaroo court and pure, unadulterated political theater.

For all I know you may be correct. But it was a legally constituted court of law nonetheless. And I dare say you're correct that a President (while he remains president) can do no wrong. But to set the verdict aside now sends the message that if you're powerful enough then a court verdict means nothing if you disagree with it. (And that's what you're really doing when you call a court "kangaroo".) If Trump expects others to respect the law he should lead by example.

P.S. Good to talk to you again Vort. I've been been away from the forum a few weeks. Hope all is going well.

Edited November 6 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

41 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

For all I know you may be correct. But it was a legally constituted court of law nonetheless. And I dare say you're correct that a President (while he remains president) can do no wrong. But to set the verdict aside now sends the message that if you're powerful enough then a court verdict means nothing if you disagree with it. (And that's what you're really doing when you call a court "kangaroo".) If Trump expects others to respect the law he should lead by example.

P.S. Good to talk to you again Vort. I've been been away from the forum a few weeks. Hope all is going well.

No, it sends the message that it was all political theater designed to keep him from winning the election.  Now that he's won, they've given up.  The proof will be: After his term is over, they will not take this path up again because they no longer find him a threat.  There's nothing they will gain by pursuing this.

When we say he was "innocent", I don't call him an innocent man.  He's got moral problems up the wazzoo.  But what crimes did he commit?  Even the judge and jury couldn't figure that out.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Perhaps I'm an incurable romantic, but I'm still hoping that the sentencing goes ahead, and that the judge tosses every argument based on "he's the President" straight into the wastepaper bin, and gives Trump exactly the same sentence any non-President Elect would have gotten for the same crimes.

Trump is now the most powerful man in the world, no one else is even close.

He knows how to be president of the united states because he has done it before.  He has also had 4 years to consider his mistakes and lost opportunities.  He has a mandate to do whatever he wants, within reason, because he won everything including the popular vote.

All of the cases will be dropped.  And it is debatable if he did anything criminal.

Now he certainly has not been a moral man and those mistakes will be paid for in the hereafter.  But his legal battles are essentially over.

You will be sorely disappointed if you keep hoping for some legal repercussions.

And there's always the chance that he will be assassinated in office.

I hope that he has a robust 4 years in office and reverses all of the liberal agendas.  Promotes world peace, that the economy will improve and that my children will be able to prosper.

[LDSGator]

35 minutes ago, mikbone said:

You will be sorely disappointed if you keep hoping for some legal repercussions.

I totally agree. 

 

35 minutes ago, mikbone said:

hope that he has a robust 4 years in office and reverses all of the liberal agendas.  Promotes world peace, that the economy will improve and that my children will be able to prosper.

 

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

and gives Trump exactly the same sentence any non-President Elect would have gotten for the same crimes.

Here’s your homework assignment.  Go search for a single human being who has ever been tried and convicted of violating the law Trump was convicted of.  Just one.  Any one.

Actually, if you want an easier assignment, please briefly state, in your own words, without looking it up, exactly what Trump was convicted of doing.

 

[Jamie123]

11 hours ago, mikbone said:

You will be sorely disappointed if you keep hoping for some legal repercussions.

That's why I'm an incurable romantic.

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Actually, if you want an easier assignment, please briefly state, in your own words, without looking it up, exactly what Trump was convicted of doing.

It doesn't really matter what he was convicted of. The important thing is that he was convicted by a properly qualified court (kangaroo or otherwise).

Many a person has been convicted of more serious crimes than those of which Trump was convicted, on much flimsier evidence. And the remedy has always been appeal to a higher court.

Not election of the defendant to public office.

Edited November 7 by Jamie123
Grammar

[Jamie123]

P.S. the whole situation reminds me a bit of this...

They missed out my favourite bit though. When Marge won't support Mr. Burns:

Homer: I bet you didn't even know how many eyes a fish had before the press blew this out if all proportion!

Marge: (Trademark growl.)

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here’s your homework assignment.  Go search for a single human being who has ever been tried and convicted of violating the law Trump was convicted of.  Just one.  Any one.

Actually, if you want an easier assignment, please briefly state, in your own words, without looking it up, exactly what Trump was convicted of doing.

 

For classified documents?

That's actually a pretty long list.  One of the things that burned a lot of people was the amount of classified documents (it wasn't just one or two, or even three or four...documents.  There is no way this is an...ooops...I forget it in a pocket, or anything like that) he had.  This was boxes worth.  People have been jailed for a single document, much less boxes.  We are talking Bradley/Chelsea Manning amounts of stuff, if not worse.  Manning was pardoned, but they were definitely jailed for that.  Assange didn't even steal the documents, and they went after him (though he did worse in some ways as he published them publicly, so a different crime than merely taking them).  It has also been indicated (though this also is classified, so we don't know the full extent) that this information was sold to various groups and people.  Most likely are the Saudi's who have instituted an interesting program with the technology that could have only come from the US...somehow..., and some suspect Russia was also given some of it.  Alas, we probably will never know unless, or until, it's declassified...which if it is per standards [at least 50 years] will be long after I'm dead).

The Classified documents is probably the most alarming of all the items he's been accused of as anyone who's ever had to deal with classified knows what normally happens to those who take those documents out of the specified confines in which they are supposed to be kept.

That said, Trump probably won't be prosecuted.  Even before he gets set as President, the cases now would probably have to go before the Supreme Court.  They have ruled that in official acts the President is immune, and as he will soon be the President, by the time a case would get before the Supreme Court, I imagine he will be immune from prosecution. 

It doesn't make his companies immune from prosecution though, and judgements already leveled against him via corporate or other entities may go forward.  We may also see something more akin to what happened to Biden as well, where they don't go after Trump directly, but after those related to him.

Edited November 7 by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

It doesn't really matter what he was convicted of. The important thing is that he was convicted by a properly qualified court (kangaroo or otherwise). 

Many a person has been convicted of more serious crimes than those Trump was convicted of, on much flimsier evidence.

Yes, "more serious".  You can't get any less serious than a non-crime.  He was convicted of "being Trump". 

What is the sentencing guideline for that?  If I convicted you of "being Jamie", how should I treat you?  It's a felony after all.  What's the sentencing guideline for that?

Yes, at the end of the day, that was what he was accused of.  Sure, they dress it up in mumbo-jumbo and obscure whatever the actual crime is because there was no crime.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

And the remedy has always been appeal to a higher court.

And he was going through that process.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Not election of the defendant to public office.

This is absolutely true.  And it adds to the argument that it was all political theater.  People dropped charges because he won the election.  But nothing says that they had to do that. 

He's not the President yet.  They could have sentenced him and put him in jail.  In fact they could have prevented anyone from visiting him to swear him into office.  He'd never become President.

The fact that they didn't proves it was all a sham.

Why do you think they haven't sentenced him?  There is no sentence for a non-crime.

[Jamie123]

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, "more serious".  You can't get any less serious than a non-crime.  He was convicted of "being Trump". 

What is the sentencing guideline for that?  If I convicted you of "being Jamie", how should I treat you?  It's a felony after all.  What's the sentencing guideline for that?

You're still essentially saying that the conviction doesn't count because YOU disagree with it. And you may be right. Perhaps the case against Trump really is a load of bunkum. (I'm not saying that it isn't.) But it is not for you or me or Trump (or even "People") to make that determination. It is for a court to decide. Maybe Trump was targeted unfairly for political reasons. But that again is a defence that should be presented to a court.

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

People dropped charges because he won the election.

"People" has no business to be doing any such thing. If they didn't think he was guilty they should not have charged him in the first place. But they did charge him and the court agreed he was guilty. What is "People" saying now? "Sorry, we had a stupid attack, and the judge and jury were too stupid to see how stupid we were being. Please excuse us now while we go and take our anti-stupid pills."

There is only two good reasons for "People" to drop the charges: new evidence or new argument that Trump is innocent. "He was elected" don't make no matter.

Edited November 7 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

You're still essentially saying that the conviction doesn't count because YOU disagree with it.

It has nothing to do with my agreement.  It has to do with LAWS.  You know, the things that are voted on by the legislature?  Not things that a partisan judge writes up on the spur of the moment.

What law was broken?  What was passed by the legislature that was signed into law by the governor or President that was then added to law books?  What did he break?

Name it!  If there's nothing there, he broke no law.  If he broke no law, what does it mean that he was convicted of "a felony"?

Go ahead. Name it.  Don't look it up.  Name the law that was broken.

Edited November 7 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It has nothing to do with my agreement.  It has to do with LAWS.  You know, the things that are voted on by the legislature?  Not things that a partisan judge writes up on the spur of the moment.

What law was broken?  What was passed by the legislature that was signed into law by the governor or President that was then added to law books?  What did he break?

Name it!  If there's nothing there, he broke no law.  If he broke no law, what does it mean that he was convicted of "a felony"?

Go ahead. Name it.  Don't look it up.  Name the law that was broken.

I am not saying that he did break any laws. But whether he did or not, a qualified court of law has determined that he did.

You and I are quite within our rights to to say that that decision was wrong. But that does not alter the outcome of the case.

If the ruling against Trump is to be overturned it should be by a court - not by us.

Edited November 7 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I am not saying that he did break any laws. But whether he did or not, a qualified court of law has determined that he did.

You and I are quite within our rights to to say that that decision was wrong. But that does not alter the outcome of the case.

If the ruling against Trump is to be overturned it should be by a court - not by us.

I never said otherwise.  But the fact that no one can name the felony says he wasn't convicted of a felony.  He was convicted of "being Trump"

So the statement "he's a convicted felon" is only used to sow dissent.  It has no claim to any valid point being made.

Edited November 7 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

He was convicted of "being Trump"

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But either way, his guilt is a "fact in law" until the verdict is overturned. That's how it would be for anyone else, and that's how it ought to be for Trump.

[Carborendum]

10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But either way, his guilt is a "fact in law" until the verdict is overturned. That's how it would be for anyone else, and that's how it ought to be for Trump.

No one else would be convicted of a crime that doesn't exist.

If they used different rules to convict him, it should be perfectly fine to use different rules to nullify.

[Jamie123]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No one else would be convicted of a crime that doesn't exist.

If they used different rules to convict him, it should be perfectly fine to use different rules to nullify.

We could argue about this all day.

You are still essentially saying that in your opinion the case against Trump was flawed and the verdict can therefore be ignored. (You can couch that in phrases like "no law exists" but it is still your opinion.) I still say that you are not qualified to make that determination.

There are a lot of people here in the UK who think that Lucy Letby is innocent. There is in my opinion some merit to some of their arguments.

However, I could have no possible objection to her being described as a "convicted mass murderer" (which is what she is - she was tried for mass murder and convicted) nor would I countenance "different rules" being applied to exonerate her.

If "different rules" are to be applied to nullify Trump's conviction, why stop there? Why not have "different rules" to nullify the convictions of everyone who some people think were unfairly treated in the courts?

Edited November 7 by Jamie123

[mikbone]

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Many a person has been convicted of more serious crimes than those of which Trump was convicted, on much flimsier evidence. And the remedy has always been appeal to a higher court.

Not election of the defendant to public office.

Nooe, just ask ChatGPT how many felons have been elected to office, you will find a long list.

Trump is the first ti become POTUS though.

 

If i someone tried they could convict you of a felony.  Does that make you feel any better?

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Nooe, just ask ChatGPT how many felons have been elected to office, you will find a long list.

Ok "always" was hyperbole. I'm sure the history books will reveal other criminals who escaped punishment by election.

As for felons elected to high office, Hitler was one. That went really well for Germany, didn't it?

10 minutes ago, mikbone said:

If i someone tried they could convict you of a felony.  Does that make you feel any better?

Yes, I'm sure there are enough skeletons in my closet that anyone who cared enough to be bothered could probably get me convicted of something. Does that make me feel better? No. Would I fight it? Probably. Would I expect "different rules" for my acquittal? No.

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

It doesn't really matter what he was convicted of. The important thing is that he was convicted by a properly qualified court (kangaroo or otherwise).

Fair enough, I suppose.  We LDS are all about honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law.   Even if there are serious, large, real issues with weaponizing law for political purposes.  

But your point was to give "Trump exactly the same sentence any non-President Elect would have gotten for the same crimes."   Three things:

- Had you completed your homework, you would have failed to come up with any other human being to be charged/convicted against the law they used against Trump.  He was the first. 

- Let's call Trump's convictions what they are: He valued properties in ways that are the industry norm, in order to obtain favorable financing terms, just like everyone else in the business does.   The New York prosecutor was an elected official who actually, literally ran on "elect me and I promise we'll find something on Trump and lock him up".  After years of searching, this is the worst they could find.

- In the US, the law is usually geared to go light on first time offenders.  Arrests are often not made unless law enforcement is pretty certain there can be a conviction.  Plea deals are the norm.  For first time white collar felonies where there's not exactly a victim or blood or anything, light or suspended sentences are the norm.  Maybe easy parole, followed by a record expungement.  Maybe some court costs, maybe a fine or a penalty, maybe not.

So, yes.  Let's give Trump exactly the same sentence anyone would get for the same crimes.  In other words, a slap on the wrist at worst, and nothing official on his criminal record.  Exactly like any other American would get in the same situation.

 

Compare and contrast with this other story that happened to one of my wife's friends.  She was convicted of a federal crime of a magnitude greater severity than what Trump did. 

Edited November 7 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, yes.  Let's give Trump exactly the same sentence anyone would get for the same crimes.  In other words, a slap on the wrist at worst

Not a Trump fan but that’s what he deserves. No seconds on dessert, go to your room and play Nintendo. 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

Now he certainly has not been a moral man and those mistakes will be paid for in the hereafter.

Unless he repents. That is why we are all here.

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Yes, I'm sure there are enough skeletons in my closet that anyone who cared enough to be bothered could probably get me convicted of something. Does that make me feel better? No. Would I fight it? Probably. Would I expect "different rules" for my acquittal? No.

Could I please borrow your closet key for a moment? There's just something I'd like to briefly check  

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Could I please borrow your closet key for a moment? There's just something I'd like to briefly check