How long before Trump is arrested?

[Cardinal]

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".

Conservatives...trump supporter or not...aren't equipped to take this topic seriously. It's obvious that how conservatives approach this issue is shaped wholly by Clinton not getting charged by Comey, blind adulation for trump, or both. Simply put, their ability to think about this rationally is compromised.

 

[jpevans]

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?

Law Enforcement has been coming after normal citizens forever, if they were suspected of a crime. That's their job, The Drumpf may not be normal in all aspects but he's just a citizen like you or me, despite his last known job.

 

[OrphanSlug]

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.

You, making this argument, ignoring Trump suggests a level of hypocrisy that may set a new award winning failure on your part.

 

[Cardinal]

Renato Mariotti gives his opinion of the strength of an indictment and conviction. Tl;dr version: the FBI may very likely have been motivated solely to secure the documents (I said this a few days ago), but if they wanted to charge him, they would have a very strong case for conviction.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

A logical conclusion from your argument is that political leaders are above the law, but I know you're only applying that to trump.

 

[Superfly]

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.

Our leaders HAVE to be held to a different standard. They are LEADERS, for ****s sake.

You don’t want the President to be held to the same standard as the crackhead down the street, do you? Or the guy who sells him the crack?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Our leaders HAVE to be held to a different standard. They are LEADERS, for ****s sake.

You don’t want the President to be held to the same standard as the crackhead down the street, do you? Or the guy who sells him the crack?

The level of delusion it takes to believe president of the United States is held to the same effective standard as “the crackhead down the street” is pretty astounding

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A logical conclusion from your argument is that political leaders are above the law, but I know you're only applying that

Well we know you only want to apply the law against Trump. And not just that, you support the government go through everything Trump did to look for the slightest basis on which to charge him.

 

[jpevans]

Our leaders HAVE to be held to a different standard. They are LEADERS, for ****s sake.

You don’t want the President to be held to the same standard as the crackhead down the street, do you? Or the guy who sells him the crack?

Why not hold them to the same standard? If they break the law arrest them, bring them to trial.

The level of delusion it takes to believe president of the United States is held to the same effective standard as “the crackhead down the street” is pretty astounding

Criminals are criminals. No one is above the law, or below it.

 

[Cardinal]

Well we know you only want to apply the law against Trump. And not just that, you support the government go through everything Trump did to look for the slightest basis on which to charge him.

1. Did Trump possess those documents illegally? The answer to that is yes. That's not a point in dispute. Whether or not he declassified them is a red herring.

2. Did he possess them with criminal intent? The timeline of events clearly points to yes.

 

[jpevans]

Well we know you only want to apply the law against Trump. And not just that, you support the government go through everything Trump did to look for the slightest basis on which to charge him.

The Drumpf did so much crime in plain sight, that the search isn't too complicated.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Law Enforcement has been coming after normal citizens forever, if they were suspected of a crime. That's their job,

Well that’s not true at all.

If the federal government seriously wanted to put you in federal prison for years they could find some basis to do it on if they really rooted through everything in your life.

For us little people we actually have an advantage in that no one is actually monitoring us unless we cause actual harm to someone else or commit some serious fraud. Papadapolous got nailed by the feds for having a drunk conversation in a bar, his real crime was supporting Donald Trump, but you and I can rave and rant while drunk in bars and no one cares.

The Drumpf may not be normal in all aspects but he's just a citizen like you or me, despite his last known job.

In one sense yea, in practical sense though no.

If I got arrested it wouldn’t even make the local papers.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

1. Did Trump possess those documents illegally? The answer to that is yes. That's not a point in dispute. Whether or not he declassified them is a red herring.

No, he had summary authority to have those documents. His possession of them is inherent declassification which is his sole right by virtue of his former office. Which is why you’re declaring this a “red herring” your argument is really tarded. It’s like it someone is accused of driving while license suspended but had a valid license and you say “well the fact his license wasn’t suspended is just a red herring, did he drive with a suspended license if we ignore the fact his license wasn’t suspended?” Lol this is such a dumb argument it hurts

2. Did he possess them with criminal intent? The timeline of events clearly points to yes.

Well it wasn’t illegal for him to possess them so there can’t be criminal intent at all since the act is not a crime

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Drumpf did so much crime in plain sight, that the search isn't too complicated.

No, he didn’t. His crime was being a president representing normal working Americans and scaring the regime. This is just the regime looking for a basis to claim this is a legitimate investigation

 

[Mongidig]

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.

Trump is being investigated because he committed crimes.

Those who still support trump are mostly criminals and don’t mind the crimes he has committed. I bet 90% of the deplorable’s have a criminal record. Trump is a racist and so are his supporters. We are seeing a general lack of morales amongst his flock which makes sense because he has no morales.

Has it occurred to you that you may have been conned by Trump? You know he is a con man right? You realize the only reason other politicians stick with him is because they need his ignorant voters. They otherwise think he’s dumb as a stump.

 

[Mongidig]

No, he didn’t. His crime was being a president representing normal working Americans and scaring the regime. This is just the regime looking for a basis to claim this is a legitimate investigation

Do you realize how cultish that sounds?

 

[Ethel2]

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.

he decided to represent normal Americans.

Normal Americans....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Cardinal]

No, he had summary authority to have those documents. His possession of them is inherent declassification which is his sole right by virtue of his former office. Which is why you’re declaring this a “red herring” your argument is really tarded. It’s like it someone is accused of driving while license suspended but had a valid license and you say “well the fact his license wasn’t suspended is just a red herring, did he drive with a suspended license if we ignore the fact his license wasn’t suspended?” Lol this is such a dumb argument it hurts

Well it wasn’t illegal for him to possess them so there can’t be criminal intent at all since the act is not a crime

Amazing. Every word you said was wrong.

 

[TearItAllDown]

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.

Keep 'em coming! You're cracking me up!!!!

 

[TearItAllDown]

Well we know you only want to apply the law against Trump. And not just that, you support the government go through everything Trump did to look for the slightest basis on which to charge him.

BINGO!!

 

[ClaraD]

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

Trump changed the law from a minor misdemeanor to a felony in 2018.

Trump Made It A Felony To Mishandle Classified Documents In 2018

The FBI search of the former president's Florida property was focused on mishandled presidential materials, according to reports.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Mika-El]

That entire Biden family is a pretty clear example of this. But as yet, the legal institutions are doing a stellar job of sheltering/colluding with them.

Please explain who the entire Biden family is. Finish your allegations.

Provide the name of each Biden family member who has committed a crime and what the crime is and your reference for that crime.

Then please explain how this justifies Trump breaking laws.

Please explain the reasoning you use that if one person breaks a law another can as well. Please explain.

You engage in in absurdity.

Even if you could prove a Biden family member did something illegal and should be convicted how does it absolve Trump or anyone else of a crime?

That tactic of trying to lower the standards of the Presidency by saying if others are corrupt Trump can be to is precisely the kind of exercise that does not make America great as you claim, but justifies America being led by a criminal.

What an absurdity you will pose as a patriot making America great and your entire argument is predicated on justifying crime by one since another does it.

Its worn. Its called what about ism. Its an argument someone with no morals uses to justify not having them.

Think of your argument. If I rape someone and get away with it you can too.

Better still since you believe other politicians are criminals Trump can be one too.

That's quite the standard of greatness you advocate.

You done?

Thanks for sharing your beliefs.

 

[cpwill]

Trump changed the law from a minor misdemeanor to a felony in 2018.

Trump Made It A Felony To Mishandle Classified Documents In 2018

The FBI search of the former president's Florida property was focused on mishandled presidential materials, according to reports.

news.yahoo.com

You are citing that he increased the punishment for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1924 to up to five years. That, however, was not 18 U.S.C. 1924, but 18 U.S.C. 793 (f).

 

[antiquity]

You are arguing Clinton violated the laws Trump did and got away with it so Trump could violate the laws too,

Your argument is defective for two major reasons: she did not break the laws he did and nothing she did set a legal; precedent for a defence for Trump under the statutes he violated.

[/QUOTE]Comey: Several Statements by Clinton Were False, but ...

In testimony before the House panel on July 7, Comey described several statements made by Clinton on the campaign trail about her use of the server as "not true."
Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent," he said.

[/QUOTE]

So what she did was stupid but there was no evidence of a crime just stupid reckless behaviour.

This is what I find as a reckless statement ^^...if a democrat did it it was an honest mistake but if a republican did it sent in the FBI with guns drawn.

This pathetic attempt to laugh off what Trump did by comparing it to what Clinton did is disingenuous

No... it is more disingenuous for you to not make the comparison.

 

[iguanaman]

And Biden is going to end his term even lower. Trump is probably more popular than Biden at this point.

Or his approval will go up and he easily wins another term. 2 can play they guessing game. Trump record unpopularity is already in the history books.