It's a victory for the rule of law. It's a very sad day for America. It's extremely sad to see that he still has as good a chance as ever to be POTUS. Trump’s continued candidacy would insult the country - Washington Examiner This is simple: A unanimous jury has found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts. Our system of laws requires that we respect unanimous juries. The president is the chief executive of the laws of the United States. For the sake of honoring our laws and Constitution, nobody should run for the office of president while convicted of felonies by unanimous juries of citizen peers. Period. End of story. ... Repeat: This is not about Trump. It is about the nation he asks to lead. It is not fair to U.S. citizens to present them with this awful Hobson’s choice. Trump must withdraw.
I don't believe I've heard of a single person saying they were shocked that he didn't lose support. Almost everyone expected him to get a bump in donations and support from the trial. But because we believe in justice, it was understood that would happen and we sought to pursue justice anyway. Nobody is surprised. It is an unrelated issue to the fact that Trump committed felonies and has been found guilty.
humorous. The same people who defended Trump said the same thing. SHOW US THE PROOF. Go look into the trading patterns of some of these congressmen.
Trumpers tend to lazily assert that a motivated DA could indict a ham sandwich as a way to minimize Trump's indictment. But honestly there is a whole big apparatus that needs to be managed to get an indictment and then more to get a conviction. For a defenseless defendant, like an undereducated, poor gangbanger, maybe hanging an indictment on him is easy. But for a savvy, connected, and monied defendant like a former president or sitting congressman, I can't believe that's easy. Run the regular process. If you can get probable cause for a warrant, get the warrant. If you can get a grand jury to indict, indict. If a DA thinks he can win a court case, prosecute. If you can convince a jury of 12 of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, convict. I'm not much worried about politicians falling victim to frivolous accusations. The burden of proof is so heavy when you're going after powerful people that I think it is extremely unlikely you will hurt someone that doesn't actually deserve it. I can't support that at all. Even though I think a felony conviction you can win against a politician is very likely to be valid, I don't want to create any incentive for people to look for judicial end-runs around their political rivals. Besides which, sometimes in history it is the felon you want for your leader. Timing aside, if people know officially that Trump falsified business records, that he stole classified material, and that he tried to subvert the 2020 election because he was convicted of all those things, but they want him to be president anyway, he should be president. Why should the people be denied their choice?
Is Warren ready to surrender all of her gains .... or is she now in favor of regulating congress from trading after she got her share?
And then the proof was shown. And then he was convicted. What are these same people saying today? I wouldn't know the first thing about trading patterns or being able to recognize wrong doing in them. Again, if there is a crime and they are indicted, it's a good thing regardless of party. You can keep rolling your eyes or whatever it is you're doing. No one on the left is saying otherwise.
24 is pretty damn low if we are going to be honest, especially for a country he has spend the last century spreading American democracy and telling everyone else how everything should be ran.
OK so you've asked and several of us have named Democratic members of Congress who should and in the case of Menendez are being prosecuted. Some of us have said we have no problem with investigations and would agree prosecutions should happen if evidence is shown. Now you say that actual evidence isn't needed and just take your words about patterns? I'm going to point out that many of us exhaustively documented including in this thread what the evidence of criminality by Trump. It wasn't just "Hey look at this pattern!" or a feeling.
Not really fair to punish someone who was following the rules. She was in banking previously and has extensive knowledge about the financial industry. You are write her office and ask if she is willing to retroactively give up many she gained while following the rules. She is in favor of not allowing it now which most congressional members don't want to do. It is strange that you are singling her out. But if she committed a crime, then by all means prosecute her for it.
Also as someone who claims to be above it all and hates both parties why aren't you asking for Republicans to say which members of Congress from their party should be prosecuted? All of your criticism of Congress seemed to be focused on Pelosi and Warren. There are many Republicans who have gotten very rich while in Congress
Tim O’Brien/Bloomberg: Trump Fought the Law and the Law Finally Won The former president faced the reckoning he has long deserved, but the more critical verdict will come on Election Day. Trump, predictably, remained unbowed. “This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt,” he said outside the courtroom after the verdict was read. “The real verdict is gonna be Nov. 5, by the people.” “Our country’s gone to hell,” he added, in case you needed a bit of cheering up. “We don’t have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess.” Trump, who has been a primary architect of the divided mess that is the United States, knows of what he speaks. He has routinely deployed lies, racism and us-versus-them paranoia to help undermine Americans’ faith in one another, in our institutions and in the world around us. He has romped along, merrily stoking conflagrations wherever he could, unchecked. Congress impeached Trump twice, but Republican allies put the acquisition and retention of power ahead of civic duty and let him elude accountability. Three other criminal trials are still in motion against him, but they’ve been bogged down by a blend of judicial malfeasance and ineptitude and prosecutorial lapses. But a handful of New York law enforcement officials, in a prosecution that was fated from its very beginnings to be labeled a witch hunt, finally brought Trump to heel.
trump would never make a decision based on what is good for the country or the American people. He only makes decisions on what is best for trump.
"You can indict a ham sandwich" is an exaggeration but not completely off base. The indictment process very much favors the prosecution—there is typically no defense involved during this process, and you need just a majority of the grand jury to charge. Prosecutor misconduct does happen. However, going from an indictment to a conviction is a completely different story. The process for a conviction very much favors the defense. There are all kinds of rules and restrictions on what the prosecution can present, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously. I completely agree that powerful people are very unlikely to be wrongly convicted. It's usually the other way around—they are much more likely to be wrongly acquitted. But that's our system, and it should be that way. "The DOJ must remain independent to reduce the chance of federal prosecution misconduct. One candidate has promised to remove that independence. For everyday citizens who believe that prosecution misconduct can happen to anyone—it’s false, but it becomes much more likely when the DOJ is no longer an independent agency. And for those who want to tackle real corruption or prosecute misconduct, that will continue as long as the DOJ remains independent. It’s much less likely to happen once it loses its independence. I find it quite dishonest for individuals to support a candidate who promises to remove this independence while also advocating for addressing corruption or prosecution misconduct. I can agree with you on the negative incentive. But as you say, it's very likely to be valid, so I'm not too concerned about it. The baseline for politicians needs to be much higher than it is today, and we have plenty of qualified individuals to fill these roles. We don't need to protect the few who might be unjustly prosecuted. The world isn't always fair, and there are bigger goals to achieve than an individual's right to be a politician. Besides, this wouldn't be a new precedent, as there are already states that do not allow convicted felons to hold public office.
Totally unrelated to politics right, this was a bad look for Democrats but a win is a win I guess. I just wish ya'll were more sincere. Nothing about the trial was odd? Everything was a coincidence? Look, I know ya'll are going to run with this but only the people who share your values or lack there of will take this verdict as a legit one.
