• 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!

Wil Trump announce his candidacy for President early to try and stop an indictment and should it matter?

Grand Mal

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
43,982
Reaction score
25,327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's similar to when he telegraphed his narrative of how the 2020 election would be "stolen" half a year in advance. When he inevitably did it everybody was basically prepared.
He was bleating about the election being rigged in 2016.
 

SenorXm/Sirius

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
18,806
Reaction score
15,118
Location
New York State, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
He'll announce he's running.. Pocket $300-400 million in donations.. Then say because of health issues or whatever he can't run..

Or he's sending a team to Hawaii to find Obamas birth certificate.. Whatever.. He knows he has millions of people to fleece... That's all that matters to him...
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
57,163
Reaction score
26,160
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, IMO he does not have to "yell 'it's all politics'" because it IS "all politics."

The 01/06 Committee is a partisan witch hunt. (Don't say it's got 2 Republicans, they are both "partisans" too).

I would prefer Trump not run. I am not sure he could actually win, even with all the anger developing over the progressive policies of the Biden regime.

But IMO trying to stop a potential run simply because of personal hatreds is not a very "democratic" way of handling elections.
Yes, it's politics to investigate an attempt to overturn an election, and then an attack on our Capitol. What other than politics could explain Congress caring to know more about those events? It is truly a mystery! Obviously, there's no legitimate interest in investigating either of those events!
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
61,474
Reaction score
24,099
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
1. The elders of the Republican Party should visit Mr. Trump (for whom I voted twice and would do so again) and tell him NOT to run. That would be a sign of his patriotism. The nation simply could not tolerate another one of his campaigns.

2. The elders of the Democratic Party should visit the current Attorney General and tell him NOT to prosecute Mr. Trump, not even for jaywalking. Just let him fade away. Most Americans are too darn busy with their precarious financial situation to give any thought to him anyway.

It is time for the adults in both parties to clean up things.
Neither of those things have any chance of happening. You should know this by now. The GOP is now the POT and he will take the party down with him and they will deserve everything they get. The rule of law cannot be stopped and you should know that too.
 

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
24,610
Reaction score
16,355
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, IMO he does not have to "yell 'it's all politics'" because it IS "all politics."

The 01/06 Committee is a partisan witch hunt. (Don't say it'd got 2 Republicans, they are both "partisans" too).

I would prefer Trump not run. I am not sure he could actually win, even with all the anger developing over the progressive policies of the Biden regime.

But IMO trying to stop a potential run simply because of personal hatreds is not a very "democratic" way of handling elections.
I have heard this repeatedly over the past year, "partisan witch hunt". If you're an American citizen, wouldn't you want to know how this all happened, who planned it, were there others from inside Congress who were aware of this happening? Wouldn't you like to know how this country can avoid another 'Jan 6' in the future? Don't you want to know who was responsible for the lack of manpower by Capitol police? How come you don't want to protect our democracy in the future, since it literally was on the line on Jan 6, 2021?

I'm sick of hearing from Trump apologists and defenders of this insurrection brushing it off as though this was nothing but people using their First Amendd
I would LOVE to know "who planned it," if in fact someone planned to actually enter the Congress and disrupt the proceedings.

Like who organized those "red hats" led by Mr. Ray Epps that were seeking entry into the Capitol as declared the night prior (to the derision of everyone who heard them that night). Those same "Red Caps" led by that same Mr. Epps who convinced people to head to the capitol early and then convinced certain members to break down barricades and urged the crowd using bullhorns to "enter the capitol."

However, I don't see this 01/06 "Committee" doing any such thing. Their SOLE purpose (after failing to successfully impeach Trump for it) is to try to find a way to charge him anyway.



Well if this were a true "fact finding" committee in THIS regard, then where is the invetigation into why:

Pelosi turned down the offer of National Guard protection, approved by President Trump?

Why were the Capitol Police not fully staffed and prepared?

Why didn't Pelosi seek assistance from the D.C. police?

Those are just a few questions a true investigation would seek to answer.



It is quite easy to avoid another such incident. Simply take steps suggested by the above questions whenever there is a concern. After all, isn't that what some States and locales did during the various "approved" demonstrations (read RIOTS) that occurred with Democrat blessings during the Trump Administration?



I'm sick of all the ad hominin labeling, straw man deflections, and confirmation bias projecting that YOUR side of the argument always pushed forward whenever your assertions are challenged.

But one has to deal with what one is presented with. :coffee:
Do you 'REALLY' want to know who planned all that? For the most part, the planners were all at the Willard Hotel on the night of Jan 5. If you want to 'really' know who planned it, just check the guest list for the Willard on that day. This is what the Jan 6 committee has been doing. Finding out who's responsible.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
91,928
Reaction score
44,863
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, IMO he does not have to "yell 'it's all politics'" because it IS "all politics."

The 01/06 Committee is a partisan witch hunt. (Don't say it's got 2 Republicans, they are both "partisans" too).

I would prefer Trump not run. I am not sure he could actually win, even with all the anger developing over the progressive policies of the Biden regime.

But IMO trying to stop a potential run simply because of personal hatreds is not a very "democratic" way of handling elections.
lol still crying because co-conspirators weren't allowed on the committee.
 

Grand Mal

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
43,982
Reaction score
25,327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, IMO he does not have to "yell 'it's all politics'" because it IS "all politics."

The 01/06 Committee is a partisan witch hunt. (Don't say it's got 2 Republicans, they are both "partisans" too).

I would prefer Trump not run. I am not sure he could actually win, even with all the anger developing over the progressive policies of the Biden regime.

But IMO trying to stop a potential run simply because of personal hatreds is not a very "democratic" way of handling elections.
Hunt? Theres no 'hunt' involved. Those dumbasses smiled for the cameras while they broke in, stole and vandalized. The only hunt is putting names to faces.
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
36,690
Reaction score
14,032
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have been listening to talking heads on the tub talking about the idea that Trump will announce his candidacy for president earlier that otherwise expected to stop n indictment from either the Feds, New York or Georgia. The idea would be he could yell it is all politics if indicted. I am not asking if trump is guilty or not, but if any candidate for president, or even any other office, should be indicted while running for that office? My opinion would be if the evidence is there for a substantial offense, then yes, you can and should indict.
I don't know if that will make a difference, but I feel like there are some weird laws about not messing around with political candidates running. I could be remembering something wrong though, as it's only a vague impression. However, my position is that no one should be above the law.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
17,772
Reaction score
18,148
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't know if that will make a difference, but I feel like there are some weird laws about not messing around with political candidates running. I could be remembering something wrong though, as it's only a vague impression. However, my position is that no one should be above the law.
I don't think it is a law but rather a DOJ policy.......
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
36,690
Reaction score
14,032
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't think it is a law but rather a DOJ policy.......
If it's just a policy then it's basically meaningless, though wasn't Hillary investigated leading up to 2016? So *shrug* No one is above the law.
 

Liberal7360

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
3,316
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have been listening to talking heads on the tub talking about the idea that Trump will announce his candidacy for president earlier that otherwise expected to stop n indictment from either the Feds, New York or Georgia. The idea would be he could yell it is all politics if indicted. I am not asking if trump is guilty or not, but if any candidate for president, or even any other office, should be indicted while running for that office? My opinion would be if the evidence is there for a substantial offense, then yes, you can and should indict.


The lame "prosecuting political enemies" line would only work if the investigation starts when he declares candidacy.

All of this started way before he would ever declare candidacy. The grand juries in NY, DC and in Georgia have been working for months now so this is just a continuation of the process that trump himself set in motion with his own actions.

I wonder why the trump people were very good with LOCK HER UP! For no criminal reason, yet would see an indictment through proper constitutional due process as political persecution.

He and his followers kept chanting LOCK HER UP even after countless investigations exonerated her of any crime.

trump has more than likely committed many crimes. If he has, the last thing we should do is let him get away with it. It will only be a green light for others to do it if they don't like the result of an election.

Being president doesn't make anyone above the law. Being an ex president doesn't make anyone above the law.

Even though the DOJ claims they can't indict a president, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.

Let trump try to claim political persecution. Most people in our nation don't believe a word that comes from his mouth anymore.

We should let due process continue and play out according to our laws and constitution and let the chips fall where the rightly belong.
 

Liberal7360

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
3,316
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
If I were him I'd wait until after the midterm and the congressional members are sworn it. It's likely to end this mess as the republicans look poised to take both houses. If that happens the republicans are going to stop the investigations and Cheney and Kinzinger will have no say. Kinzinger will be out and Cheney may be reelected but will have no voice.
Announcing now may just stir the pot. Democrats are incensed with hate for Trump and nothing matters more to them.


It doesn't matter if the republicans control the House or Senate. They can stop any and all investigations in congress they want.

The Jan 6th committee will be finished with their investigation and will have written their report by January.

The republicans don't control the DOJ. That is SEPARATE from the congress.

The congress can't stop the DOJ investigations and any prosecutions that result from the investigations.

Meanwhile, the only government agency with authority to indict anyone can't be stopped by the republicans even if they control the congress.

So the DOJ investigations will continue and we will see prosecutions.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the reality is that the committee can't indict anyone. All they can do is investigate and make recommendations on how to prevent this from ever happening again. They can make criminal referrals to the DOJ but it's up to hte DOJ to decide whether to prosecute or not.

Don't put your Kleenex away just yet. The DOJ is doing their job and we will see results no matter if the republicans control the congress or not and there isn't anything anyone can do to stop it.
 
Last edited:

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
6,835
Reaction score
3,306
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
He was bleating about the election being rigged in 2016.
Yeah, I guess it's just what he does.
For similar reasons that dictators hold 'elections' in which they get 99% of the vote. The purpose isn't plausibility, but to undermine the perceived legitimacy of elections in general, and create a sense of alienation for any critics; in Trump's case only Republican critics for now, of course, who are naturally subject to accusations of covering for and colluding with 'the enemy' if they maintain that the elections are legitimate.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,484
Reaction score
24,486
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The lame "prosecuting political enemies" line would only work if the investigation starts when he declares candidacy.

Incorrect. It can start at any point where the in-group seek to prevent someone of the out-group from achieving or returning to political power.

All of this started way before he would ever declare candidacy. The grand juries in NY, DC and in Georgia have been working for months now so this is just a continuation of the process that trump himself set in motion with his own actions.

Actually, all of these sorts of things began, continued, and still continue to this day once Trump appeared to be gaining success in the Republican Primaries.

They have simply been ongoing ever since.

I wonder why the trump people were very good with LOCK HER UP! For no criminal reason, yet would see an indictment through proper constitutional due process as political persecution.

I don't know, perhaps because despite Mr. Comey's explanations, anyone else who had done what she did with her personal servers, but was not so "politically connected" might have faced criminal charges?

I never expected her to be charged even if all the evidence showed such a violation. She is one of the political "in-crowd." Trump was never more than a "celebrity donor" prior to his run for office.

Trump has more than likely committed many crimes. If he has, the last thing we should do is let him get away with it. It will only be a green light for others to do it if they don't like the result of an election.

Perhaps. Or perhaps that is just your confirmation bias talking. Time will tell.

Being president doesn't make anyone above the law. Being an ex president doesn't make anyone above the law.

Correct. But then again, a witch-hunt trying to find something, literally ANYTHING to try to prevent someone from running for office is hardly a good faith effort at criminal investigation.

Even though the DOJ claims they can't indict a president, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.

I believe that is why Nixon chose to resign. However, it has yet to be tested anf in any case there must be a crime. Meanwhile, as mentioned above, this push to search for a crime reminds me of Levrentiy Beria, Stalins secret police boss, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" kind of thinking.

Let trump try to claim political persecution. Most people in our nation don't believe a word that comes from his mouth anymore.

Perhaps, or perhaps that's more confirmation bias on your part.

We should let due process continue and play out according to our laws and constitution and let the chips fall where the rightly belong.

Once again, due process has steps. None of those steps seems to be the play in either your arguments or the acts of the 1/6 committee
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
27,874
Reaction score
20,400
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have been listening to talking heads on the tub talking about the idea that Trump will announce his candidacy for president earlier that otherwise expected to stop n indictment from either the Feds, New York or Georgia. The idea would be he could yell it is all politics if indicted. I am not asking if trump is guilty or not, but if any candidate for president, or even any other office, should be indicted while running for that office? My opinion would be if the evidence is there for a substantial offense, then yes, you can and should indict.
I agree. It shouldn't make any difference if one is an announced candidate or not. It would look political to many people as it would be Democratic DA’s or AG or the DOJ doing the indictment. But that is what it is. Being an announced candidate for the presidency is different from being a nominated candidate for a political party. An announced candidate is just someone, anyone who states he is running for the presidency. Trump would be one of hundreds if one counts both major parties, all third parties, independents, and any others I forgot. I always like the guy from New York I think, that ran for the presidency under the party of, “My Rent is too Damn High,” party.

If the evidence is there, indict him, charge him, bring him to trial. If it looks like a political vendetta, so be it. In our two party system, there’s no way to get around that.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
18,176
Reaction score
7,921
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They were right to pursue him from the start, a person like Trump always needs strong opposition, look what he did, and think what he may be waiting to do if opportunity affords.

If it wasn't for his tax cut, no impeachment, no defeat.
So harass someone who has done nothing and drive them to extremes. That's exactly how this looks to anyone on the republican side. If democrats had ever tried to work with the newly elected President instead of declaring him an illegitimate President things may have turned out much different. Because you don't like his personality is no excuse for what the democrats started from the very beginning. Now the democrats cry because he got 3 justices appointed through the allowed process and they can't stand it.
Republicans are coming back to power and the democrats will cry and whine and claim cheating, because that's just what they do.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
18,176
Reaction score
7,921
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree. It shouldn't make any difference if one is an announced candidate or not. It would look political to many people as it would be Democratic DA’s or AG or the DOJ doing the indictment. But that is what it is. Being an announced candidate for the presidency is different from being a nominated candidate for a political party. An announced candidate is just someone, anyone who states he is running for the presidency. Trump would be one of hundreds if one counts both major parties, all third parties, independents, and any others I forgot. I always like the guy from New York I think, that ran for the presidency under the party of, “My Rent is too Damn High,” party.

If the evidence is there, indict him, charge him, bring him to trial. If it looks like a political vendetta, so be it. In our two party system, there’s no way to get around that.
I agree in normal situations but the democrats have corrupted every process since Trump announced he was running. The real problem is they were all embarassed, the politicians, the media, the trump haters, never trumpers, everyone who laughed out load and went on left wing talk shows claiming it could never happen, guaranteed! So to recover their dignity they have to get trump. Sick bunch of power hungry politicians. They aren't a damn bit better than Trump.
 

Grand Mal

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
43,982
Reaction score
25,327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
If it's just a policy then it's basically meaningless, though wasn't Hillary investigated leading up to 2016? So *shrug* No one is above the law.
The FBI investigation into the email thing was reopened a couple weeks before the vote. Announced to be reopened, anyway, nothing ever came of it.
Any effect it may have had on the election is up to you to guess at.
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
9,437
Reaction score
1,631
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So harass someone who has done nothing and drive them to extremes. That's exactly how this looks to anyone on the republican side. If democrats had ever tried to work with the newly elected President instead of declaring him an illegitimate President things may have turned out much different. Because you don't like his personality is no excuse for what the democrats started from the very beginning. Now the democrats cry because he got 3 justices appointed through the allowed process and they can't stand it.
Republicans are coming back to power and the democrats will cry and whine and claim cheating, because that's just what they do.
Oh, Trump done plenty, but when he passed his tax cut he did it all in, if not for anything else, because it was same as Bush, so I knowed, and did what I know how.

Without tax cut, no impeachment, no defeat of Trump.

Do you know what his tax cut did?
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
9,437
Reaction score
1,631
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So harass someone who has done nothing and drive them to extremes. That's exactly how this looks to anyone on the republican side. If democrats had ever tried to work with the newly elected President instead of declaring him an illegitimate President things may have turned out much different. Because you don't like his personality is no excuse for what the democrats started from the very beginning. Now the democrats cry because he got 3 justices appointed through the allowed process and they can't stand it.
Republicans are coming back to power and the democrats will cry and whine and claim cheating, because that's just what they do.
Trump is responsible for his own actions, no-one drove him to any behavior.

He would have pulled the same parade if he had lost in 2016 guaranteed, just as two houses Reprobate will for sure overturn for Trump in 2024.
 

Ishm

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
1,340
Reaction score
1,005
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
i've seen a bunch of American flag shits over the last few days. i think we should see some of these...
Not sure what you've been eating, but that's a hell of a result for the 4th 😂
 
Top Bottom