Trump Presidency

[deadheadskier]

The saying goes and has been true for 30+ years:

When Democrats control government, the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives. When the Republicans control government, there are no fiscal conservatives."

[easyrider16]

Oh yes, of course, allegedly. Wouldn't want to assume guilt in a case that might never actually get to trial if the GOP candidate gets elected and Trump's legal team can get the Trump-appointed judge to delay the trial again.

I don't see Trump getting elected, but it's too close for comfort. No way this is wrapped up before Nov of next year.

Circling back on this, it appears the Fulton County DA might be bringing an indictment sometime in August. If that happens, it's a whole different ball game for Trump. No federal authority can stop a state prosecution, nor can a U.S. president pardon a state crime. Even if he won the Presidency, he'd likely still have to stand trial.

All kinds of potential implications. If he goes to trial before the election and gets convicted, he might be incarcerated before the election. If the trial gets delayed until after the election and he wins, you'll have a constitutional crisis - a sitting President who might be subject to incarceration.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Oh yes, of course, allegedly. Wouldn't want to assume guilt in a case that might never actually get to trial if the GOP candidate gets elected and Trump's legal team can get the Trump-appointed judge to delay the trial again.

I don't see Trump getting elected, but it's too close for comfort. No way this is wrapped up before Nov of next year.

Circling back on this, it appears the Fulton County DA might be bringing an indictment sometime in August. If that happens, it's a whole different ball game for Trump. No federal authority can stop a state prosecution, nor can a U.S. president pardon a state crime. Even if he won the Presidency, he'd likely still have to stand trial.

All kinds of potential implications. If he goes to trial before the election and gets convicted, he might be incarcerated before the election. If the trial gets delayed until after the election and he wins, you'll have a constitutional crisis - a sitting President who might be subject to incarceration.

Minimum jail time for a conviction on racketeering charges is five years. I still doubt we see him spending any time in jail.

[Fancypants]

Also i should add that I sympathize with DickC - while I don't know him personally, i suspect he is a Republican the way I (and I sense easyrider) used to be a Republican. DIckC just has not accepted that the Republican party left us long ago - and does not exist anymore. Its a bitter pill to swallow and I'll still vote for the Charlie Baker / Chris Sununnu types in local and state elections - but they don't exist in national politics.

I think you’ll find plenty of people here would have considered themselves small government conservatives. Unfortunately, today’s party is far from that model. Given their social viewpoints as well as their undemocratic tendencies, as well as the Trump cultists that populate the party, I simply cannot vote for any Republican at the national level and look suspiciously at those at the state level even here in Vermont. I view them as guilty until proven innocent.

Well, Bubba, I cannot vote for any BIG spending Democrat which is all we've gotten from Biden and company. To misquote the movie Top Gun, their policies are writing checks the country cannot cash, nor afford to.

Prime example, the "affordable" care act. Congress requires spending bills for new programs to balance at the ten year mark. The Democratics met that requirement by taxing varied items for ten years to offset only six years of subsidies. So as of 2020, the ACA is only 60% funded. Miserable fail.

The above is just ONE example of the Democratic parties attempt to spend us into oblivion. I don't believe a single Democrat could take AND pass economics 101. Of course, many Republicans would fail that course too. I just hold out hope the Republicans can stop the run-away spending train before its too late.

When given the choice between someone who willingly subverts the Constitution and someone who supports economic policies I disagree with, the latter will get my support every time. We can fix bad policy. We cannot easily repair democracy.

I strongly disagree with which political leaning/party is responsible for subverting the Constitution and destroying democracy. Last I checked it was the left side of the aisle that was performing acts of bias in their prosecutions based on political affiliation. Take off the blinders before it's too late.

[easyrider16]

I strongly disagree with which political leaning/party is responsible for subverting the Constitution and destroying democracy. Last I checked it was the left side of the aisle that was performing acts of bias in their prosecutions based on political affiliation. Take off the blinders before it's too late.

This is some solid trolling. If you actually believe this, I'm sad for you. Wake up, dude. He lied to you about election fraud. Even DeSantis is pointing that out now. Then he tried to stage a coup by sending slates of false electors and trying to get his loyal Vice President to throw out the legitimate ones. His own hand-picked VP and AG have condemned his actions, and his political rivals in the GOP are calling him out on it. These prosecutions are just the law catching up with him.

[deadheadskier]

If Trump does end up being found guilty on some of the charges he faces and ends up serving time (he should if accusations are true), it will be interesting to see how cultists like FancyPants react. Will they believe the judges or Trump? I think we know the answer. That's why they are cultists

[easyrider16]

If Trump does end up being found guilty on some of the charges he faces and ends up serving time (he should if accusations are true), it will be interesting to see how cultists like FancyPants react. Will they believe the judges or Trump? I think we know the answer. That's why they are cultists

I know exactly how they will react. They will call the verdict illegitimate products of liberal judges and/or juries. No amount of facts will convince them to stray from their beliefs. It's religion at this point, not reason, if you're still a Trump supporter.

As an aside, there is nothing unconstitutional or undemocratic about politically-motivated prosecutions. One of the primary functions of opposing parties in a healthy democracy is to investigate and expose corruption in their opponents. The key question is not whether it's politically motivated, but whether there is probable cause to charge and evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict. So long as the protections of due process, grand juries, rights to confrontation, right to jury trial, etc. are maintained, politically-motivated prosecution is a healthy sign of democracy.

[deadheadskier]

Tough day for FancyPants. His cult leader gonna need more donations to his legal fund

[Dickc]

To start with, I wrote in Mitt Romney in 2020. To be fair, I live in Massachusetts, so most of the time my vote does not count. That in an of itself made the Romney vote a no brainer.

I want everyone here to think about a few things.

First - I am assuming Trump will ask for a jury trial. All that is needed on a jury is one vote for not guilty, and you have at the very least, a hung jury and a mistrial. I think it will be virtually impossible to get a jury conviction because of the number of Trump voters out there. If too many jurors are dismissed because they voted for Trump, it will be appealed to the Supreme court on the basis of jury tampering. Outcome of an appeal to the SJC is a knuckle ball at best.

Second - No matter how you cut this, there is a political slant to these indictments. That may sway non Trump independent voters into a not guilty.

I think the varied cases against him have a VERY steep hill to climb to get even close to a conviction.

Finally. the next time there is a Republican President, there WILL BE RETALIATION. There will be a string of Democrats indicted on some possible bogus charges as payback. This WILL be EXTREMELY BAD for our representative democracy.

[deadheadskier]

Are you suggesting the charges against Trump are bogus?

For 7 years that man has been screaming to have his political opponents jailed. For every time someone has said lock her up, I've said go right ahead. Bring a case if you have one. There has been none.

Trump behaved in office and beyond with more criminal malice than any president we have ever had. He deserves the steepest penalties afforded by the constitution. If he was even aware of the fake elector schemes and did nothing about them as President? He is a traitor to our country and deserves to be locked in a cage. Full stop

I seriously hope you are wrong about the challenges of trials by jury, but I fear you are probably right. Maybe we get lucky and he croaks from the stress of it all. Hopefully the MAGA movement dies with him.

[easyrider16]

I'm not worried about retaliation. If a prosecutor brings bogus charges, the defendant has the right to move to dismiss for lack of probable cause. I'm far more concerned that a politician who tried to subvert a lawful election would be allowed to get away with it. He should be held accountable.

Take a look at Jack Smith's resume. He's not some political hack. He is a highly experienced career prosecutor, with extensive experience not only at the justice department, but at the International Criminal court prosecuting war crimes. Go find his remarks at the press conference and see how sincere he appears. I would have a hard time believing this man would bring charges solely because of politics, or without strong evidence to support them.

I agree that this is a serious situation and a test for our institutions. But I think in the end it would be a mistake to ignore clear evidence of criminal activity by a U.S. President because we are afraid of what might happen after we prosecute him. That, to me, would be a bigger failure of our institutions than political retaliation would.

[Dickc]

Are you suggesting the charges against Trump are bogus?

No, I am not.

For 7 years that man has been screaming to have his political opponents jailed. For every time someone has said lock her up, I've said go right ahead. Bring a case if you have one. There has been none.

Trump behaved in office and beyond with more criminal malice than any president we have ever had. He deserves the steepest penalties afforded by the constitution. If he was even aware of the fake elector schemes and did nothing about them as President? He is a traitor to our country and deserves to be locked in a cage. Full stop

I do think he crossed lines. The comment about politics entering the equation has to do with the unprecedented nature of indicting a former President. I understand your position, but you need to admit that charging a former President sets a president, and as such, it IS political.

I seriously hope you are wrong about the challenges of trials by jury, but I fear you are probably right. Maybe we get lucky and he croaks from the stress of it all. Hopefully the MAGA movement dies with him.

I would like nothing better than Trump to choke on his next Big Mac. Perhaps that is harsh as I do not want to wish ill will on anyone, but I would like him to go back to mismanaging hotels and casinos at the very least.

I'm not worried about retaliation. If a prosecutor brings bogus charges, the defendant has the right to move to dismiss for lack of probable cause. I'm far more concerned that a politician who tried to subvert a lawful election would be allowed to get away with it. He should be held accountable.

Its just the idea of it. These same folks who would riot, and blindly support Trump would take that as a slap in their faces and move us closer to another right wing riot, possibly with more grave consequences.

Take a look at Jack Smith's resume. He's not some political hack. He is a highly experienced career prosecutor, with extensive experience not only at the justice department, but at the International Criminal court prosecuting war crimes. Go find his remarks at the press conference and see how sincere he appears. I would have a hard time believing this man would bring charges solely because of politics, or without strong evidence to support them.

He may have a stellar resume, but he cannot do anything without Merrick Garlands permission, and I see Garland as a VERY vindictive Attorney General as he was shut out of a Supreme Court slot by Republicans. Actions have consequences as the Republicans are now seeing.

I agree that this is a serious situation and a test for our institutions. But I think in the end it would be a mistake to ignore clear evidence of criminal activity by a U.S. President because we are afraid of what might happen after we prosecute him. That, to me, would be a bigger failure of our institutions than political retaliation would.

I worry that the rabid Trump supporters will not see this point, and that hung juries are all we will get as a result. YMMV.

[easyrider16]

I don't think we should base our actions on what rabid Trump supporters might do. The worst people in our society should not dictate the status quo.

Part of my point about Smith's resume is that I doubt a prosecutor of his experience would choose to bring charges unless he believed he could obtain a conviction. I think he understands the gravity of this case and the peril of failure.

I'm not really concerned about Garland being vindictive. Trump has due process rights and could move to dismiss if these are bogus charges. In any case, the whole point of appointing a special counsel is to separate the matter from Garland's direct supervision. He can ultimately tell Smith not to bring charges but I don't think he can force Smith to pursue bogus ones. In any case, I don't see Smith as the type of man to carry out another man's political vendetta.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Traitor.

[easyrider16]

The biased right-wing news orgs, including Fox News et. al. are already starting up the bullsh!t to assist Trump. I just read this article, in which a supposed expert raises concerns that this new indictment will have a chilling effect on first amendment rights.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... r-AA1eHRgZ

It's almost like this guy didn't read the indictment. It specifically says that they are not prosecuting him for what he *said* publicly. It also explicitly acknowledges that he had a first-amendment right to lie about election fraud. Then the indictment goes after Trump for his *conduct*. Specifically, a conspiracy to send false slates of electors, open sham electoral investigations, and pressure the VP to do something illegal. And it lays out specific actions the conspirators took in furtherance of the conspiracy in great detail. If you read the indictment, what this guy says in the Fox news article seems like outright lying.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indi ... n-charges/

Edit: Trump's former AG Barr agrees with me on this one:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1eK0I1