How long before Trump is arrested?

[Logician Man]

Well it certainly isn’t petty in the sense that they are trying to stifle and imprisoned political opposition.

The pettiness is in the naked absurdity of the charge. This is basically a nicer way of saying anti-Soviet behavior. This is a show trial

A "show trial"? Please cite the 'trial' case number. Shouldn't be difficult, as the trial case number would be part of the 'public' record.

 

[jpevans]

Attempting to take down the leader of Biden’s opposition

The Drumpf is a criminal & a possible political opponent. His status as a traitor & criminal trumps his political aspirations. He failed in an attempt to overthrow the duly elected President of these United States, he ran a business from the Resolute Desk, He colluded with Pooten*, He obstructed Justice.
* For the record, Mueller said he couldn't verify because many witnesses refused to appear, & those that did offered conflicting versions of events i.e. some were lying.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Attempting to take down the leader of Biden’s opposition

Can you articulate the policy or law you'd like to see which renders prominent politicians immune from investigation, indictment, etc.?

 

[smallvoice]

Trust me I am very clear-eyed about how you "see" it.

And you also know what you Canadians "think" means absolutely NOTHING...

 

[jpevans]

Trump is not subject to that law. He was president. Hillary was merely a lowly secretary.

The Drumpf is a lowly 2nd place in the last election. A twice Impeached Loser who can't stand the truth, that he was "Beaten Like a Drum" by a wisp of an old man who barely left his basement.
Even when he was POTUS he didn't have the right to remove them to his golf club. The they were homework doodoo doesn't work considering his allergy to the written word. Whatever reason he had for taking them was nefarious, either to sell or give to a foreign power, or maybe like the alleged pee tape, just for spite.

 

[smallvoice]

Is the enemy riddled with visceral hatred, in the room now?

Well, you for one.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Acting in a banana republic manner as attorney general, his record has consistently been criminalizing opposition to the Biden regime

Oh the poor victims, need a tissue?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Can you articulate the policy or law you'd like to see which renders prominent politicians immune from investigation, indictment, etc.?

We can start with the Practice of good faith. It is quite clear given the overbreadth of the search warrant, the shifting explanations for what Donald Trump did wrong, the fact that Merrick Garland is both taking responsibility and his cleaning responsibility at the same time for the raid, That any potential accusations of criminal wrongdoing against Donald Trump are not being made in good faith. It is clear that they are simply dedicating large amounts of resources and personnel to finding a crime to charge him with.

Now, American federal law contains so many provisions and so many circumstances that can support some basis for a criminal charge, that literally nobody could be found innocent if the government was willing to dedicate enough resources to finding something wrong they did. People have been brought into federal court and charged with violating federal law because they brought seashells back from Honduras. Because some obscure federal law allows the government to charge you with violations of foreign laws.

 

[Superfly]

Trump is making the United States look weak.

Has been for years.

 

[cpwill]

The law and its punishment changed in 2018

.... Forgive me - I'm unclear of your intent. Are you saying that the law quoted above was not the law in 2016?

 

[Superfly]

No, precedent is extremely important here.

I agree to an extent.

I agree that they don’t want to set precedent that a former president can’t be arrested, but the thing is - they NEED to.

This type of precedent NEEDS to be set, so this bullshit doesn’t happen again.

 

[Superfly]

And my vote was “never.”

He will not be arrested, nor will he flee. He’s gotten away with far too much already.

He will live out the rest of his life in comfort at Maralago with an, “I told you so” smirk on his face.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We can start with the Practice of good faith. It is quite clear given the overbreadth of the search warrant, the shifting explanations for what Donald Trump did wrong, the fact that Merrick Garland is both taking responsibility and his cleaning responsibility at the same time for the raid, That any potential accusations of criminal wrongdoing against Donald Trump are not being made in good faith. It is clear that they are simply dedicating large amounts of resources and personnel to finding a crime to charge him with.

Now, American federal law contains so many provisions and so many circumstances that can support some basis for a criminal charge, that literally nobody could be found innocent if the government was willing to dedicate enough resources to finding something wrong they did. People have been brought into federal court and charged with violating federal law because they brought seashells back from Honduras. Because some obscure federal law allows the government to charge you with violations of foreign laws.

Your point was that Trump being the "leader of Biden’s opposition" was somehow relevant.

'Good faith" would apply to everyone, not just prominent politicians

Why does it matter that Trump is a prominent politician and "the leader of Biden’s opposition"

What relevance does that status have?

Or are you just including that status for innuendo purposes rather than an actual attempt to make an argument?

 

[smallvoice]

Do tell.

He did.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your point was that Trump being the "leader of Biden’s opposition" was somehow relevant.

'Good faith" would apply to everyone, not just prominent politicians

Why does it matter that Trump is a prominent politician and "the leader of Biden’s opposition"

What relevance does that status have?

Because, people Value their political leaders more than random people on the street. And when it’s obvious that your political representatives are being held to an absurd standard that the regimes political representatives are not being held to, see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc., Then this has the potential to create further de stabilization in society. Which is not a good thing.

Or are you just including that status for innuendo purposes rather than an actual attempt to make an argument?

That is in fact an argument.

 

[cpwill]

Going after someone for violation of the Espionage act isn't pettiness

I'm no Trump fan. I was Never Trump before there was a name for it, I was the first on this forum to call out his movement as proto fascist, I left the GOP because they nominated him, I supported both impeachments. I'm also a stickler for not letting politicians get away with abusing their access to classified information. It can cost time, resources, and even lives.

But - assuming that we don't learn anything major and new, and that the current information lays out what there is - this is extremely thin gruel for a prosecution. "You took something you had the right to take, but kept it too long".

 

[Callen]

And you also know what you Canadians "think" means absolutely NOTHING...

So predictable! The default come back for those who have nothing of value to say.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Because, people Value their political leaders more than random people on the street. And when it’s obvious that your political representatives are being held to an absurd standard that the regimes political representatives are not being held to, see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc., Then this has the potential to create further de stabilization in society. Which is not a good thing.



That is in fact an argument.

in regard to the special status you assert prominent politicians have
Can you articulate the policy or law you'd like to see which renders prominent politicians immune from investigation, indictment, etc.?
or no?

the idea LEOs should act in good faith is not particular to prominent politicians

 

[Callen]

I read that the articles cited in a warrant must be legitimate in establishing probable cause for a warrant but do not necessarily represent the charges being investigated. In other words, there was probable cause for the warrant under these articles but the DOJ may actually be focused on something larger, something they did not want to divulge.

 

[Mongidig]

Because, people Value their political leaders more than random people on the street. And when it’s obvious that your political representatives are being held to an absurd standard that the regimes political representatives are not being held to, see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc., Then this has the potential to create further de stabilization in society. Which is not a good thing.



That is in fact an argument.

I saw Laura Ingraham say this isn’t about Trump, it’s about the government coming after normal citizens. The problem is normal citizens don’t have access to top secret documents to store at their house. As a normal citizen I feel pretty comfortable that as long as I don’t commit crimes I will be left alone.

Has it occurred to you that the reason Trump is being hassled is because he committed crimes? Do where there is smoke there is fire. How many different investigations are going on?

 

[Ethel2]

A former POTUS being arrested would be entirely too precedent setting, not going to happen.

If the evidence warrants an arrest of a former POTUS then he should be arrested as would anyone else. Garland has said that he would apply the law evenly.
He made no mention of “precedent”.

 

[Callen]

I'm no Trump fan. I was Never Trump before there was a name for it, I was the first on this forum to call out his movement as proto fascist, I left the GOP because they nominated him, I supported both impeachments. I'm also a stickler for not letting politicians get away with abusing their access to classified information. It can cost time, resources, and even lives.

But - assuming that we don't learn anything major and new, and that the current information lays out what there is - this is extremely thin gruel for a prosecution. "You took something you had the right to take, but kept it too long".

I read that the articles cited in a warrant must be legitimate in establishing probable cause for the warrant but do not necessarily have to represent the charges being investigated. In other words, there was probable cause for the warrant under these articles but the DOJ may actually be focused on something larger, something they did not want to divulge.

 

[uptower]

I'll be happy to be proven wronmg but I doubt he'll ever be arrested.

He may be summoned for questioning or court or congress. He will likely weasel out of a personal appearance and send lawyers instead. He may even be convicted in absentia and get some nominal penalty.

But I doubt we'll ever be treated to the sweet sight of the treasonous grifter in chains.

 

[smallvoice]

So predictable! The default come back for those who have nothing of value to say.

But ONLY when you have NOTHING at all to say...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I saw Laura Ingraham say this isn’t about Trump, it’s about the government coming after normal citizens. The problem is normal citizens don’t have access to top secret documents to store at their house. As a normal citizen I feel pretty comfortable that as long as I don’t commit crimes I will be left alone.

Has it occurred to you that the reason Trump is being hassled is because he committed crimes? Do where there is smoke there is fire. How many different investigations are going on?

Every single person alive in America has committed crimes.

Numerous prominent Democrats have committed crimes openly and not been investigated. The reason Trump is being investigated so much is because he decided to represent normal Americans. So I really don’t care whatever they alleged Donald Trump did. To be quite honest, you do not either. You just want Donald Trump indicted for something, and you don’t even care whether he did what he’s being accused of.