The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[VolsAgainstTheWorld15]

Just donated $500 to Trump. You can too.
https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/36e71860382a/

Your business what you do with your money, but donating money to a millionaire, lame duck presidential candidate is an interesting expense to say the least.

 

[whodeycin85]

The New York case seems pretty repugnant. It’s not about morally, objectively wrong conduct. It involves a novel interpretation of law. It is transparently political. Pretty gross, on balance.

The Mar-A-Lago case isn’t what I would have envisioned for charging Trump, but it doesn’t really bother me because Trump seems to have brought that on himself. He bypassed many off-ramps before he got charged and he has continued to dig that hole deeper and deeper.

The fake electors case is on the other axis. The right to vote and self-determination are bedrock principles for me. I believe this was an attempted coup that threatened to end self-determination. I think the conduct was morally and objectively wrong and also unprecedented. Therefore, I have less of a problem with asking a judge and jury to decide whether the conduct fits within a previously defined crime, within reason. I don’t yet know enough about the proof or these specific statutes to know whether I believe this is “within reason” or not, to be honest.

How does the electors case compare by to Kennedy in the 60s? Same thing was done then in Hawaii and it was legal

 

[Sudden Impact]

Seems kind of like common sense applies to the scenario. Trump knows he has lost GA. Needs GA to win the Election and calls GA begs for votes. Sends Goons to twist arms and legs to get votes in GA. Knows he cannot win without GA. Willis smart to charge him with RICO. Dems are covering bases. 8 flipped fake electors.

 

[RockyTop85]

How does the electors case compare by to Kennedy in the 60s? Same thing was done then in Hawaii and it was legal

Don’t know anything about Kennedy in the 60’s. Was he trying to have the vice President overturn an election so he could stay in office?

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Your business what you do with your money, but donating money to a millionaire, lame duck presidential candidate is an interesting expense to say the least.

The PAC I donated to is used by Trump to pay his attorneys, and other expenses.

I know a couple who together have donated more than $5,000 over the past seven years.

 

[OrangeBoro]

The PAC I donated to is used by Trump to pay his attorneys, and other expenses.

I know a couple who together have donated more than $5,000 over the past seven years.

The ones making smart ass remarks don’t mind sending all out tax dollars to Zelensky

 

[whodeycin85]

Don’t know anything about Kennedy in the 60’s. Was he trying to have the vice President overturn an election so he could stay in office?

This breaks it down..

See the 1960 Electoral College certificates that the false Trump electors say justify their gambit

 

[Franklin Pierce]

The ones making smart ass remarks don’t mind sending all out tax dollars to Zelensky

Or Black Lives Matter.

 

[Majors]

We will see. Doesn’t sound like they have anything. Paraphrasing but: I know the votes are there, find them

Doesn’t seem very criminal

Just another twist of words to chase.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

The PAC I donated to is used by Trump to pay his attorneys, and other expenses.

I know a couple who together have donated more than $5,000 over the past seven years.

If you're a conservative, capitalist, you should have known better than to donate to self proclaimed billionaire. That you admitted to it is bold, yet without merit. Trump's history is full of grift.

Why?

 

[VOLS INC.]

Or Black Lives Matter.

Or worse. A Democrat!

 

[Majors]

If you're a conservative, capitalist, you should have known better than to donate to self proclaimed billionaire. That you admitted to it is bold, yet without merit. Trump's history is full of grift.

Why?

Capitalist/investors were during great financially in the market under “self proclaimed billionaire”

Republican, Democrat and Independent

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Capitalist/investors were during great financially in the market under “self proclaimed billionaire”

Republican, Democrat and Independent

Yep. You're a reactionary to irresponsible and unsustainable economic edicts that yielded great returns, SHORT TERM. That's what he wanted because he knew it would sucker the mass of reactionaries in this country.

 

[RockyTop85]

This breaks it down..

See the 1960 Electoral College certificates that the false Trump electors say justify their gambit

“Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes, according to the initial results, which were certified by the governor. A recount was underway on Dec. 19, 1960, when presidential electors across the nation were required by law to meet and cast their ballots.”

“between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time.”

“three elector nominees”

So four additional differences.

The contest in that state was still legitimately in question (and ultimately flipped although I don’t think that’s significant except to illustrate that it was legitimately uncertain), it wasn’t significant to the overall outcome, It wasn’t an effort to overturn the overall election, and it wasn’t a farce to have the vice president throw the election and install Kennedy as an unelected executive.

This might mitigate the actions of the state-level people somewhat, but the people at the top were still trying to keep Trump in power despite the fact that he lost the election.

 

[clarksvol00]

3) if Trump is convicted by an Atlanta jury, appeals courts overturn it.

You keep saying everything will get overturned by appellate courts. What are you basing this on? Is it a procedural flaw? The facts don't back up the charges (if so, why)? The law he's being charged under doesn't apply? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just want to know your bases for these suppositions.

 

[Majors]

Yep. You're a reactionary to irresponsible and unsustainable economic edicts that yielded great returns, SHORT TERM. That's what he wanted because he knew it would sucker the mass of reactionaries in this country.

Capitalist take profits…profits were good.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Capitalist take profits…profits were good.

 

[Tman44]

This breaks it down..

See the 1960 Electoral College certificates that the false Trump electors say justify their gambit

Looking at it in the light of 1960, it seems fair that Republicans would want a back up plan in the case initial counts were wrong. The way Smith has approached the latest charges is inherently flawed as the charges take the original statutes out of context from a wholesale level. It has been said that you can indict a ham sandwich, and that seems to be relevant here, especially in a jurisdiction that went against Trump over 85%. I can honestly see a jury disregarding the law and convicting Trump on these charges based solely on political bias. I also see it clear that once said conviction is looked at through a purely legal lens, the conviction(s) would have to be thrown out. I think this will end up hurting the democrat party in the long run as independent voters (and reasonable democrats) will understand how democrats abuse power for political gain. No matter what happens with these indictments, I find it sad that the full power of the Department of Justice is being misused to attack a political opponent. This used to be the realm of banana republics.

 

[clarksvol00]

Looking at it in the light of 1960, it seems fair that Republicans would want a back up plan in the case initial counts were wrong. The way Smith has approached the latest charges is inherently flawed as the charges take the original statutes out of context from a wholesale level. It has been said that you can indict a ham sandwich, and that seems to be relevant here, especially in a jurisdiction that went against Trump over 85%. I can honestly see a jury disregarding the law and convicting Trump on these charges based solely on political bias. I also see it clear that once said conviction is looked at through a purely legal lens, the conviction(s) would have to be thrown out. I think this will end up hurting the democrat party in the long run as independent voters (and reasonable democrats) will understand how democrats abuse power for political gain. No matter what happens with these indictments, I find it sad that the full power of the Department of Justice is being misused to attack a political opponent. This used to be the realm of banana republics.

I am completely uneducated on this. Can you explain how/why the charges take the statutes out of context on a wholesale level?

 

[Tman44]

I am completely uneducated on this. Can you explain how/why the charges take the statutes out of context on a wholesale level?

The largest problem that permeates the latest indictment is that of the first amendment. Being incorrect is not a crime, even lying is not a crime. Every politician in American history could be jailed if lying was a crime. This isn't the best explanation; however, I found this and I hope you find it useful.

Trump Was Indicted for Being Wrong—Which Is Not a Crime

 

[Hunerwadel]

The PAC I donated to is used by Trump to pay his attorneys, and other expenses.

I know a couple who together have donated more than $5,000 over the past seven years.

Don't feel too bad about it. Trump has been using people like you his entire life.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

Looking at it in the light of 1960, it seems fair that Republicans would want a back up plan in the case initial counts were wrong. The way Smith has approached the latest charges is inherently flawed as the charges take the original statutes out of context from a wholesale level. It has been said that you can indict a ham sandwich, and that seems to be relevant here, especially in a jurisdiction that went against Trump over 85%. I can honestly see a jury disregarding the law and convicting Trump on these charges based solely on political bias. I also see it clear that once said conviction is looked at through a purely legal lens, the conviction(s) would have to be thrown out. I think this will end up hurting the democrat party in the long run as independent voters (and reasonable democrats) will understand how democrats abuse power for political gain. No matter what happens with these indictments, I find it sad that the full power of the Department of Justice is being misused to attack a political opponent. This used to be the realm of banana republics.

You don't need to be sad, just stop believing the b.s. Trump is not a person you need to protect. He is a grown man that made his decisions.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

The largest problem that permeates the latest indictment is that of the first amendment. Being incorrect is not a crime, even lying is not a crime. Every politician in American history could be jailed if lying was a crime. This isn't the best explanation; however, I found this and I hope you find it useful.

Trump Was Indicted for Being Wrong—Which Is Not a Crime

Take a few minutes and read the actual indictment. You will be happier and understand the situation. Lying and being wrong is not what he is being charged with or part of the indictment.

 

[GroverCleveland]

You keep saying everything will get overturned by appellate courts. What are you basing this on? Is it a procedural flaw? The facts don't back up the charges (if so, why)? The law he's being charged under doesn't apply? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just want to know your bases for these suppositions.

Fair enough. No in-depth legal analysis. Have not read through the indictments because not sure I want to waste the time. But here is why I feel this will be the outcome:

1) some pretty smart lawyers who have read through everything say this is a nothing burger.
2) What little bit I know about this latest seems to boil down to Trump behaved like a cad, made atrocious statements, blah, blah, blah. Heck. I agree. But we should not imprison people because we don't like their political speech and I trust the courts to uphold that.
3) the anti-Trump crowd has gotten more irrational about him as every "we got him now" attempt has failed or been proven to have been made up and/or a product of their echo chambers. See nothing about this that seems any different. Just for example, take Adam Schiff. The man seems to be positively deranged about Trump and has been wrong virtually every single time he opens his mouth. Why would I have any confidence they "have him now?"

 

[whodeycin85]

“Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes, according to the initial results, which were certified by the governor. A recount was underway on Dec. 19, 1960, when presidential electors across the nation were required by law to meet and cast their ballots.”

“between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time.”

“three elector nominees”

So four additional differences.

The contest in that state was still legitimately in question (and ultimately flipped although I don’t think that’s significant except to illustrate that it was legitimately uncertain), it wasn’t significant to the overall outcome, It wasn’t an effort to overturn the overall election, and it wasn’t a farce to have the vice president throw the election and install Kennedy as an unelected executive.

This might mitigate the actions of the state-level people somewhat, but the people at the top were still trying to keep Trump in power despite the fact that he lost the election.

Those differences dont show illegal activity...and there were lawsuit challenging he election results. The electors count was more but that is moot the article even states the wording of Trump electors letter submission was similar......so other the being just 1 state it's the same and not illegal.