NY: Trump on Trial!

[Ferguson97]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Genuinely would like to know how you think Watergate isn't a violation of this standard.

[Ferguson97]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Genuinely would like to know how you think Watergate isn't a violation of this standard.

Did watergate threaten the national security of our nation ?

His sabotage of the peace deal did because 1. Led to tens of thousands more of our troops dying

And Trump’s Jan 6th was an illegal attempt to overturn a free and fair election and led to the Capitol attack

[Edu]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Seriously, one of the biggest grievances that people all around the world have is that politicians seem to be able to do whatever they want and rarely have to face legal consequences. The fact that a possible Trump indictment produces such terror and arguments about "precedent" or some such bullcrap is pretty messed up.

[Comrade Funk]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Genuinely would like to know how you think Watergate isn't a violation of this standard.

Did watergate threaten the national security of our nation ?

His sabotage of the peace deal did because 1. Led to tens of thousands more of our troops dying

And Trump’s Jan 6th was an illegal attempt to overturn a free and fair election and led to the Capitol attack

So now you get to wash your hands after years of supporting him. Good for you!

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Seriously, one of the biggest grievances that people all around the world have is that politicians seem to be able to do whatever they want and rarely have to face legal consequences. The fact that a possible Trump indictment produces such terror and arguments about "precedent" or some such bullcrap is pretty messed up.

Cause you don’t want to set a precedent where each administration tries to go after the other because the fact is presidents operate under legally grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy . Do you really want to open that can of worms .

It’s why it should only be done in extremely flagrant cases like the two I mentioned

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Genuinely would like to know how you think Watergate isn't a violation of this standard.

Did watergate threaten the national security of our nation ?

His sabotage of the peace deal did because 1. Led to tens of thousands more of our troops dying

And Trump’s Jan 6th was an illegal attempt to overturn a free and fair election and led to the Capitol attack

So now you get to wash your hands after years of supporting him. Good for you!

I did not vote for Trump (I wrote in Kasich ) so what you are saying is literally false . Honestly this just tells me you never actually read my posts because I probably am one of the  most prominent blue avatar on here if not most who did not vote for him.

[Ferguson97]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Seriously, one of the biggest grievances that people all around the world have is that politicians seem to be able to do whatever they want and rarely have to face legal consequences. The fact that a possible Trump indictment produces such terror and arguments about "precedent" or some such bullcrap is pretty messed up.

Cause you don’t want to set a precedent where each administration tries to go after the other because the fact is presidents operate under legally grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy . Do you really want to open that can of worms .

It’s why it should only be done in extremely flagrant cases like the two I mentioned

This is honestly more pathetic than just straight-up defending Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Seriously, one of the biggest grievances that people all around the world have is that politicians seem to be able to do whatever they want and rarely have to face legal consequences. The fact that a possible Trump indictment produces such terror and arguments about "precedent" or some such bullcrap is pretty messed up.

Cause you don’t want to set a precedent where each administration tries to go after the other because the fact is presidents operate under legally grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy . Do you really want to open that can of worms .

It’s why it should only be done in extremely flagrant cases like the two I mentioned

This is honestly more pathetic than just straight-up defending Trump.

That’s how we have done things for decades , otherwise both Clinton and Bush would have been prosecuted after they left office .

Thank god that they weren’t

[Spectator]

The political side of me is actually rooting for Trump’s indictment because it’ll hopefully clear a path for DeSantis.

I have a feeling an indictment will probably benefit Trump, as he'll use it as proof that the establishment has it in for his 2024 campaign.  It will feed well into his platform.

The more logical side of me agrees that it'll help Trump in the primary, but hurt him in the general. That is why Democrats are going after him.

It'll harden the die hards, definitely, but will it convert swing voters? Will he be able to peel off DeSantis's base voters? That's the big question.

DeSantis’s base voters are the people that like Trump too.

[Ferguson97]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Seriously, one of the biggest grievances that people all around the world have is that politicians seem to be able to do whatever they want and rarely have to face legal consequences. The fact that a possible Trump indictment produces such terror and arguments about "precedent" or some such bullcrap is pretty messed up.

Cause you don’t want to set a precedent where each administration tries to go after the other because the fact is presidents operate under legally grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy . Do you really want to open that can of worms .

It’s why it should only be done in extremely flagrant cases like the two I mentioned

This is honestly more pathetic than just straight-up defending Trump.

That’s how we have done things for decades , otherwise both Clinton and Bush would have been prosecuted after they left office .

Thank god that they weren’t

Why do you want presidents to be held to a higher standard than the average person?

If you think they should only be prosecuted if their actions threaten national security, then you are necessarily saying that a president could strangle his wife in her sleep, and he shouldn't be prosecuted. That is the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

[Tekken_Guy]

The political side of me is actually rooting for Trump’s indictment because it’ll hopefully clear a path for DeSantis.

I have a feeling an indictment will probably benefit Trump, as he'll use it as proof that the establishment has it in for his 2024 campaign.  It will feed well into his platform.

The more logical side of me agrees that it'll help Trump in the primary, but hurt him in the general. That is why Democrats are going after him.

It'll harden the die hards, definitely, but will it convert swing voters? Will he be able to peel off DeSantis's base voters? That's the big question.

DeSantis’s base voters are the people that like Trump too.

The big question is how many will switch their votes to Trump and how many will stick with DeSantis.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Seriously, one of the biggest grievances that people all around the world have is that politicians seem to be able to do whatever they want and rarely have to face legal consequences. The fact that a possible Trump indictment produces such terror and arguments about "precedent" or some such bullcrap is pretty messed up.

Cause you don’t want to set a precedent where each administration tries to go after the other because the fact is presidents operate under legally grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy . Do you really want to open that can of worms .

It’s why it should only be done in extremely flagrant cases like the two I mentioned

This is honestly more pathetic than just straight-up defending Trump.

That’s how we have done things for decades , otherwise both Clinton and Bush would have been prosecuted after they left office .

Thank god that they weren’t

Why do you want presidents to be held to a higher standard than the average person?

If you think they should only be prosecuted if their actions threaten national security, then you are necessarily saying that a president could strangle his wife in her sleep, and he shouldn't be prosecuted. That is the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

1. Cause presidents operate on legal Grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy and I generally have been in support of our foreign policy

2. Ok that’s another exception to this standard

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Genuinely would like to know how you think Watergate isn't a violation of this standard.

Did watergate threaten the national security of our nation ?

His sabotage of the peace deal did because 1. Led to tens of thousands more of our troops dying

And Trump’s Jan 6th was an illegal attempt to overturn a free and fair election and led to the Capitol attack

Wasn’t Watergate an attempt (or rather a series of attempts) to interfere in a free and fair election? He didn’t have those guys break into the DNC for fun, did he?

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's a good precedent to indict a former president who has provably committed a crime, let alone one who tried to use a mob to install himself as dictator. America survives if we're equal under the law.

If his fans start rioting, targeting politicians, blowing up our power grid, that doesn't change that justice is always the right decision. It'll be awful, but we'll have to safeguard our country from the demands of criminals. If he gets off and screams "TOTAL VINDICATION" (which he will do either way), then at least we'll have shown we strive for equality under the law.

Charge him for Jan 6th then or the GA Fake Electors stuff

[TheTide]

Al Capone gets arrested for tax evasion?     

[Badger]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

True but we can’t let Trump or his supporters use violence or the threat of it to make themselves above the law

Exactly. After all, that's how Mussolini came to power.

Great. Let's have cops patrolling through Staten Island in armored trucks and the like. See how they like it whenever the shoes on their foot about potential Mass violence.

[Badger]

I don't believe people realize what will happen if Trump gets arrested.  A lot of his supporters feel they have nothing to lose.  Plus, Trump himself is going to fuel the fire.  This is going to get very ugly....  

You could probably do a better job hiding the fact that you’re rooting for this to happen.

It doesn’t change the fact that this would be breaking with precedent to charge a president(current or former) over something like this . We correctly didn’t charge Clinton over Perjury and Trump shoudnt be charged over this .

There are only two instances a president should have been charged post ww2 :

Nixon - If the Sabotage of the Vietnam Peace talks came out

Trump - Jan 6th

Both instances were a president or presidential candidate flagrantly violating the national security of our nation for their own political interest


But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Nixon would have been indicted but for Ford's pardon. Ford calculated that Nixon being dragged from office and forced to resign in disgrace was sufficient sanction to keep wrongdoing from happening again. Apparently he was wrong. Trump's misdeeds are frankly far worse than Nixon's, and he suffered basically no sanction as a result. Indictment of his many crimes is warranted or else the system here is failed. Letting presidents get off with stuff as you suggest is the road to nothing short of anarchy.

[Badger]

It's a good precedent to indict a former president who has provably committed a crime, let alone one who tried to use a mob to install himself as dictator. America survives if we're equal under the law.

If his fans start rioting, targeting politicians, blowing up our power grid, that doesn't change that justice is always the right decision. It'll be awful, but we'll have to safeguard our country from the demands of criminals. If he gets off and screams "TOTAL VINDICATION" (which he will do either way), then at least we'll have shown we strive for equality under the law.

Charge him for Jan 6th then or the GA Fake Electors stuff

Charge him for every crime he's done, because we're not sniveling, gutless, unamerican worms.

[Edu]

Cause you don’t want to set a precedent where each administration tries to go after the other because the fact is presidents operate under legally grey areas all the time when it comes to foreign policy . Do you really want to open that can of worms .

It’s why it should only be done in extremely flagrant cases like the two I mentioned

Yes, leaders around the world have had, still have and will always have some sort of legal leeway to do things in some matters related to the security and the regular functioning of a nation state, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with regular crimes commited by a politician.

If you believe that a politician arrested and convicted for, let's say, embezzlement will lead to them being convicted for things related to actual national security then you are reaching fantasy territory.
For all your talk about "Law and order" you must think very poorly about your legal system, since you believe that, in the future, any politician that would be accused of anything would definitely be found guilty by the courts. Ironic because with that mindset, in Argentina you would be a defender of Cristina Kirchner and talk about judicial and political persecution.

Also, not sure how your example about how only the worst crimes like "January 6th" should be prosecuted stands up. Like half the country thinks that nothing illegal happened on that day, so if you are worried that people will riot because Trump is indicted the danger will still be there. If we are talking about your worries that a precedent will be set and the next administration will come out against the old one, then this would also potentially happen in this case since republican politicians seems to be fine with what happened that day including calls that the election was rigged. Republican politicians that you support qustioning the legitimacy of the election without any proof seems to set a worse "precedent" than Trump being arrested for tax evasion or whatever.

[HillGoose]

his life has been too easy its about time he got knocked down a peg

[Virginiá]

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Sweet Christmas OSR. So just no rules for presidents? But rules for other politicians? (ostensibly)

This country truly does deify POTUS. Absolutely atrocious. The president is just another person who won an election. If they break the law, treat them like anyone else would be.

[President Johnson]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Exactly this. You don't negotiate with terrorists.

[HillGoose]

Also how sad is it that not a single person here is arguing that Trump isn't guilty. All of the "don't indict" arguments are just people worried that his reaction will be so bad that he will incite terrorism. Like how far have we fallen as a nation?

Exactly this. You don't negotiate with terrorists.

After 9/11 President Bush made it known that freedom and fear were at war, it is unfortunate how so many seem to have forgotten.

[OSR stands with Israel]

But I don’t think Nixon should have been charged over watergate, Clinton over Perjury or Bush over Iraq/Gitmo

Sweet Christmas OSR. So just no rules for presidents? But rules for other politicians? (ostensibly)

This country truly does deify POTUS. Absolutely atrocious. The president is just another person who won an election. If they break the law, treat them like anyone else would be.

I’m just going if precedent of what we have pretty much always done and I gave 3 examples of where we decided not to prosecute a president even though there was a case to be made that you could have . Keep in mind I do think Trump should be prosecuted but over Jan 6th and the fake electoral scheme in GA.

Like people forget that Obama made this decision in 2009:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aide-obama-wont-prosecute-bush-officials/

It  was the right decision imo