• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it election interference?

BlueTex said:
Does the constitution prohibit indicting presidential candidates? What would be the legal basis for a continuance?
Click to expand...
No. He can not properly prepare for trial while running for president


Exceptional circumstances
 
vegas giants said:
Is it election interference to go after a major presidential candidate for an indictment when he is less than 2 years away from running?
Click to expand...
Not if they indict him for election interference during the last election.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Sorry, but that is dumber than the original post.
First, let's get past the point being indicted requires you to have arguably committed a crime. For Trump, that may be a common occurrence but thankfully for most folks, it is not. And of course you falsely presume indictments are all about politics rather than the obvious- prosecuting crime.

Then of course is the silly suggestion of right before an election. By that, half way between one and the next is "right before" to you?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry your post is too dumb to respond to.


Dismissed
 
vegas giants said:
Then this may become a common thing where the party in power indicts the opposition right before elections
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting Republicans wouldn't have cheered if Clinton had been indicted? Or Hillary? Or Obama? "Lock her up, Lock her up!". You're not fooling anyone.

The parties don't control the justice system, nor who they indict or do not indict. The grand jury is deciding whether or not their is sufficient evidence to indict. Additionally, being indicted or charged or convicted, does not prevent them from running for president.
It might look a little funny if he's in an orange jump suit on video for the debate though ;)

Trump has played fast and loose with the law his entire life, and continued while in office.
Republican voters knew this, did not correct him, they backed his every word and deed...they, and Trump, are the only ones to blame for Trump's continued bad behavior while POTUS, they brought this on themselves.

I personally do not think they should indict him for the hush money payments, unless they really think they have a rock solid felony case to make.
I am much more concerned about his election interference, and his obstruction of justice and attempts to extort Ukraine for political attacks on his Democratic opponent, and Republicans should have agreed on his impeachment and punished him for it then.

That he's now being hit in the legal system because of crimes that we all know he probably committed, is no surprise to anyone that has been following Trump.

Do we want former POTUS or presidential candidates to be above the law? Republican/Conservative voters have consistently cried no..."lock them up". LAW AND ORDER!!
So they have spoken.
 
vegas giants said:
Is it election interference to go after a major presidential candidate for an indictment when he is less than 2 years away from running?
Click to expand...
Since the elections are every four years, do you realize you are giving everybody who says they are running complete immunity from any crime half the time? Going farther, it's really most of the time since it takes time to investigate crimes.

Do you really think this is what the founders had in mind?
 
craig said:
Not if they indict him for election interference during the last election.
Click to expand...
They could....I might agree that should probably proceed since it relates to the function of government
 
Rawley said:
WHat's the "crime? wrt to the whore extortion?
Click to expand...
You're pretending you have no idea why anyone is investigating this? No. Not engaging with that sort of dishonesty.
 
vegas giants said:
I think restraint was shown for the exact reasons I have given here.
Click to expand...


I've been trying to have a mature, rational, logical and honest debate with you yet you are making it extremely clear that is impossible.

You honestly believe that the republicans and trump wouldn't have indicted Bill, Hillary or Obama?

If so I have some very beautiful ocean beachfront property in Colorado to sell you.

They weren't indicted because Bill, Hillary and Obama didn't commit crimes, all the accusations from the republicans were lies.

trey goudy even changed and forged documents during the Benghazi hearings and then leaked it to the press.

The democrats had to release the original document showing where goudy had illegally changed it.

I'm very glad that your view on this is the minority view.
 
Deuce said:
You're pretending you have no idea why anyone is investigating this? No. Not engaging with that sort of dishonesty.
Click to expand...
this whole thread is full of dishonesty. I've played with the trolls long enough. Im out!
 
Cosmik Debris said:
Since the elections are every four years, do you realize you are giving everybody who says they are running complete immunity from any crime half the time? Going farther, it's really most of the time since it takes time to investigate crimes.

Do you really think this is what the founders had in mind?
Click to expand...
Only presidential elections. I say 2 years is a reasonable cut off for a serious candidate
 
vegas giants said:
Is it election interference to go after a major presidential candidate for an indictment when he is less than 2 years away from running?
Click to expand...
It can be but it also might not be depending on the circumstances. Context matters.
 
vegas giants said:
Do you think he has a right to ask for a continuance until after the election?
Click to expand...
No, because if he does become president again he will pardon himself for any past crimes. Is that what you want a criminal to do?
 
vegas giants said:
It's a dangerous precedent
Click to expand...
I sure think so and in this particular case, the "crime" is an absurd one. This is the most perfect example of unequal justice, politicization, and utter witch hunt - all of these.
It's a bad, bad, bad look for the "integrity and fairness" of our country. It simply makes either of these a joke.
I can't help but think it won't happen. It's too crazy and too ridiculous of a so-called crime.
 
Davin said:
No, because if he does become president again he will pardon himself for any past crimes. Is that what you want a criminal to do?
Click to expand...
It's the system we have
 
gbg3 said:
I sure think so and in this particular case, the "crime" is an absurd one. This is the most perfect example of unequal justice, politicization, and utter witch hunt - all of these.
It's a bad, bad, bad look for the "integrity and fairness" of our country. It simply makes either of these a joke.
I can't help but think it won't happen. It's too crazy and too ridiculous of a so-called crime.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think Trump is guilty but this is not a major crime and should not interfere with a presidential election
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom