2024 Field

nsacpi said:
If I get a grand jury request I don't say sorry you have the law wrong or you're treating me differently from my neighbor. I comply. I think I would comply. I've never gotten one.
Click to expand...

The grand jury nonsense wasn't proper procedure. I guess I need to keep telling you to read the law and legal precedent.
 
I wouldn't say I can't comply cuz you aren't following proper procedure. That's not a determination that is up to me under our legal system. I have legal recourse. But I can't make that determination.
 
nsacpi said:
I wouldn't say I can't comply cuz you aren't following proper procedure. That's not a determination that is up to me under our legal system. I have legal recourse. But I can't make that determination.
Click to expand...


Trump says those are his and the law strongly supports that view. That's why he argued with the feds. If NARA disagrees with what Trump has in his possession they can take him to court (not criminal) and have it removed if the judge agrees with NARA. That's the way it's supposed to happen.
 
Garmel said:
Trump says those are his and the law strongly supports that view. That's why he argued with the feds. If NARA disagrees with what Trump has in his possession they can take him to court (not criminal) and have it removed if the judge agrees with NARA. That's the way it's supposed to happen.
Click to expand...


They got a grand jury subpoena. None of us gets to unilaterally decide whether a grand jury subpoena is valid or not. We can use the courts to appeal.
 
nsacpi said:
If I get a grand jury request I don't say sorry you have the law wrong or you're treating me differently from my neighbor. I comply. I think I would comply. I've never gotten one. I certainly wouldn't ask one of my kids to move the documents in question to a hiding place.
Click to expand...


Comply. Comply. Comply.

I see you must be a fan of Blue Lives Matter.


Would you ever wonder why they are doing it in the first place? Why haven't they made the same request to other highly elected officials? What made you, in particular, of special note to them?
 
Carp said:
Would you ever wonder why they are doing it in the first place? Why haven't they made the same request to other highly elected officials? What made you, in particular, of special note to them?
Click to expand...

The law should be applied in the same way without regard to the identity of the person.

This does not mean that everyone is treated the same by the law. Criminals SHOULD be treated differently from non-criminals.

In my humble opinion, Donald Trump is a career criminal. He has broken many laws. Before he was president, during his presidency, and after. The law is finally catching up to him. Of course it is going to treat him differently from people who aren't career criminals.

I would argue the legal system has given him a lot of breaks. Just to cite one. The investigation that Bragg dropped into his business' corrupt practices. This would have been a criminal case against both him as an indivual and his business as a corporate entity. I believe at least one prosecutor resigned in protest against Bragg's decision not to proceed.

There was another case that Bragg's predecessor declined to prosecute about illegal practices by him and his children in some real estate deals.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
The law should be applied in the same way without regard to the identity of the person.

This does not mean the law is applied the same or should be applied the same to everyone. It SHOULD be applied differentially to criminals from non-criminals.

In my humble opinion, Donald Trump is a career criminal. He has broken many laws. Before he was president, during his presidency, and after. The law is finally catching up to him. Of course it is going to treat him differently from people who aren't career criminals.
Click to expand...

lol

If Trump is a career criminal, which may surprise you that you could be right, it sure the hell isn't because of the current nonsense that these politicized courts are pulling.
 
nsacpi said:
The law should be applied in the same way without regard to the identity of the person.

This does not mean that everyone is treated the same by the law. Criminals SHOULD be treated differently from non-criminals.

In my humble opinion, Donald Trump is a career criminal. He has broken many laws. Before he was president, during his presidency, and after. The law is finally catching up to him. Of course it is going to treat him differently from people who aren't career criminals.

I would argue the legal system has given him a lot of breaks. Just to cite one. The investigation that Bragg dropped into his business' corrupt practices. This would have been a criminal case against both him as an indivual and his business as a corporate entity. I believe at least one prosecutor resigned in protest against Bragg's decision not to proceed.
Click to expand...

Trump clearly felt it wasn't standard procedure for former presidents to have to do (and it wasn't, btw), and he felt that it was another political attack (which it was)

And it's possible (even probable) he saw this as an opportunity to use this as a political advantage. And it seems to have worked, as something like 70% of Americans surveyed feel that the cases against Trump (including the documents case) are politically motivated. And his poll ratings have soared the more charges they keep piling on.

I get that you hate Trump. I get that you want him to be guilty of everything. But what I don't understand is how you can support such blatant perversion of the legal system? You yourself have stated on multiple cases you think there were grounds for a mistrial. So, then why would you support this?
 
Last edited:
There are always some somewhat arbitrary lines that are drawn with respect to how to treat people (including presidents and former presidents) under the law.

I'm generally ok with where the lines have been drawn over the years. Nixon and Trump on one side and the others on the other side.

There is one exception. Bill Clinton. He should have been prosecuted (and impeached) for perjury and obstruction. That's my opinion. Y'all obviously see it differently. Btw I would add obstruction to the list of crimes Trump committed while in office. There is no law (or even policy) that says he shouldn't be prosecuted for that. But he hasn't been.
 
Last edited:
I will say this. Republicans historically are slow to learn. Whether it be gerrymandering, cancel culture, mail in voting, etc. But they do learn. And prominent Dems should be very worried when Reps have control again. Because it will be open season on the top Dem officials.
 
Carp said:
I will say this. Republicans historically are slow to learn. Whether it be gerrymandering, cancel culture, mail in voting, etc. But they do learn. And prominent Dems should be very worried when Reps have control again. Because it will be open season on the top Dem officials.
Click to expand...

This is highly dependent on who Republicans might choose to empower

Teddy Bear Trump was very kind to back off of Hilary immediately after winning
 
sturg33 said:
This is highly dependent on who Republicans might choose to empower

Teddy Bear Trump was very kind to back off of Hilary immediately after winning
Click to expand...

Part of it is he desperate to be liked by leftists and media. Part of it is he isn't smart enough to know what he could do that would hold up to legal scrutiny. Part of it is he can't stand up to any opposition pressure
 
Carp said:
Polling is typically a good indicator. And in each of the past elections, Trump has performed considerably better in the election than the polls suggested.

We'll get a good idea soon how the verdict affects his popularity. But the general consensus a week ago was most didn't believe it would affect his polling much at all.

IMO, the big factor this election is the 3rd (and 4th) party candidate is more popular than your typical 3rd party candidates (other than Bernie, but he was never technically a 3rd party candidate). And these 2 candidates together seem to pulling more voters from the left than they are the right.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your points on the 3rd party candidates potentially being impactful, I think there’s been a big shift over the past 8 years on polling accuracy. Some have pointed to abortion and younger people voting more due to the backlash over it and others have pointed to even poorer sample sizes than in years past due to how many polling companies exist. But I don’t think conservatives were crazy to expect a red wave in 2022 and that never really materialized.
 
Carp said:
I will say this. Republicans historically are slow to learn. Whether it be gerrymandering, cancel culture, mail in voting, etc. But they do learn. And prominent Dems should be very worried when Reps have control again. Because it will be open season on the top Dem officials.
Click to expand...

I don’t know about those ones, Chief. Conservatives, particularly the more Christian right have been “cancelling” things basically non-stop since the Red Scare and Republicans have historically been better at gerrymandering than Dems have. Both sides do gerrymandering, but it’s been more effectively deployed by Conservatives.
 
mqt said:
I don’t know about those ones, Chief. Conservatives, particularly the more Christian right have been “cancelling” things basically non-stop since the Red Scare and Republicans have historically been better at gerrymandering than Dems have. Both sides do gerrymandering, but it’s been more effectively deployed by Conservatives.
Click to expand...

You missed the point on "they do learn."

Gerrymandering was started by Dems. And cancelling what exactly? And I would hardly classify Red Scare as cancel culture. Certainly not in the meaning we know it as today.
 
mqt said:
I don’t know about those ones, Chief. Conservatives, particularly the more Christian right have been “cancelling” things basically non-stop since the Red Scare and Republicans have historically been better at gerrymandering than Dems have. Both sides do gerrymandering, but it’s been more effectively deployed by Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Cancel culture goes way back. To the Scarlet A and beyond.

It used to go by various names. Social shunning for one. Not always a bad thang.

In other cases tragic. For example, all the families who excluded (and still exclude) gay members from Thanksgiving dinner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top