Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Ivanstone]

Trump is free to say "why not arrest others too?" If a middle-aged white rich man drives 90MPH in a school zone, pull his ass over too. But he should not get a walk on crimes for which there is evidence and testimony, just because he's a fascist and the AG isn't.

I seem to recall this one black dude was doing "90MPH in a school zone". And all the right wingers had a field day with it. Lots and lots of handwaving about this corrupt left wing politician.

I wonder whatever happened to Kwame Kilpatrick?

Oh right. Trump pardoned him. Along with a boatload of other people who like to speed in a school zone.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-supposed-say/

“Do I feel sorry for Joe Biden? No!” Watters then said. “I work at Fox! I want to see disarray on the left! It’s good for America! It’s good for our ratings!”

Once again, when you accidentally say the quiet part out loud.

[DarkTZeratul]

2)Claiming that these charges are political. Letitia James actually ran for AG saying "Elect me and I will go after the Trumps". So yeah, you can kind of argue that this has a political edge to it. The lawyer guy said it was pretty weird for an AG to promise something like that during an election.

This is ridiculous. If a lawyer ran for AG saying "elect me and I'll go after Charles Manson," nobody would argue that it means Charles Manson shouldn't go to jail for all the murder he inspired.

[solinari6]

This is ridiculous. If a lawyer ran for AG saying "elect me and I'll go after Charles Manson," nobody would argue that it means Charles Manson shouldn't go to jail for all the murder he inspired.

It's the same reason why when an AG has to get affirmed by the Senate, they always ask how the AG would react to specific cases, and they AG always has to stay impartial and say something like "I will follow the law and apply it fairly". They don't say "Oh yeah, bitches! I'm going to burn all my political opponents to the ground! Welcome to Riker's MFer's!"

[Milchshake]

I saw some lawyers on CNN talking about this last night, and they seemed to think that they Trumps MAY have a case to quash these subpoenas. The Trumps are arguing 2 things:
1)Letitia James is working both the civil and criminal cases, and is leveraging the trumps testimony against them in both cases. Something like, if they plead the fifth in the civil case, it fucks up their criminal case. And if they don't plead the fifth in the civil case, THAT fucks them in the criminal case too. Lawyer claimed this is actually not something that is done very often, and the judge might not look kindly on it.
2)Claiming that these charges are political. Letitia James actually ran for AG saying "Elect me and I will go after the Trumps". So yeah, you can kind of argue that this has a political edge to it. The lawyer guy said it was pretty weird for an AG to promise something like that during an election.

So these subpoenas are not slam dunk cases at all.

Those were Trumps own lawyers on CNN.

You're basically laundering Trump's legal defense as "some guys on CNN".

[DarkTZeratul]

It's the same reason why when an AG has to get affirmed by the Senate, they always ask how the AG would react to specific cases, and they AG always has to stay impartial and say something like "I will follow the law and apply it fairly". They don't say "Oh yeah, bitches! I'm going to burn all my political opponents to the ground! Welcome to Riker's MFer's!"

That's because saying that would be the fastest way to destroy their own chances of getting confirmed, not because there are any actual rules or laws against it. Ironically, Donald Trump himself is a fantastic counterexample given that he ran on a platform of "lock her up!" And Hilary Clinton was literally his political opponent; Donald Trump isn't this AG's opponent unless you're suggesting he intended to run against her.

[Edge-]

they're honest! They tell it like it is.

The irony in that this is the same crowd that lost their shit because Biden told them that gathering in large groups, especially with unvaccinated people, over the holidays would get them killed.

"WE LIKE A GUY WHO SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!"

*says it like it is*

*abloobloo* But UwU wE dIdN'T meaN IT LikE tHAt!

Pointing this out without even being shitty about it was apparently enough to get me "censored" on the /r/conservative FREE SPEECH platform.

[solinari6]

That's because saying that would be the fastest way to destroy their own chances of getting confirmed, not because there are any actual rules or laws against it. Ironically, Donald Trump himself is a fantastic counterexample given that he ran on a platform of "lock her up!" And Hilary Clinton was literally his political opponent; Donald Trump isn't this AG's opponent unless you're suggesting he intended to run against her.

All I'm saying is the lawyer on CNN said that if they can show the AG has a political axe to grind, the judge may have to consider that. Is that enough to throw out the subpoenas? Beats me.

[Edge-]

All I'm saying is the lawyer on CNN said that if they can show the AG has a political axe to grind, the judge may have to consider that. Is that enough to throw out the subpoenas? Beats me.

Was it Toobin? The dick guy? kek

But like...no, not really. It's have to be an extreme instance for it to have any bearing on a potential criminal case. Best I can tell from a quick trip back to her campaign/early days as AG she only promised investigations into Trump and his families companies, not prosecution. And said investigation, even of POTUS's family and business, was absolutely warranted given the already uncovered illegal (but not necessarily criminal) behavior from the Trump family and their businesses like Trump University, and investigations led by her office have already resulted in the closure of Trump's fraudulent "charity" to boot.

This continues to largely seem to be recycling pretty bad faith conservative talking points, intentional or not.

[cubby]

I saw some lawyers on CNN talking about this last night, and they seemed to think that they Trumps MAY have a case to quash these subpoenas. The Trumps are arguing 2 things:
1)Letitia James is working both the civil and criminal cases, and is leveraging the trumps testimony against them in both cases. Something like, if they plead the fifth in the civil case, it fucks up their criminal case. And if they don't plead the fifth in the civil case, THAT fucks them in the criminal case too. Lawyer claimed this is actually not something that is done very often, and the judge might not look kindly on it.
2)Claiming that these charges are political. Letitia James actually ran for AG saying "Elect me and I will go after the Trumps". So yeah, you can kind of argue that this has a political edge to it. The lawyer guy said it was pretty weird for an AG to promise something like that during an election.

So these subpoenas are not slam dunk cases at all.

Or those lawyers are doing their devil's advocate thing to get more face time and ratchet up their fees.

1) it might not be done very often, but it's certainly done, and "not very often" isn't a legal defense. That's like saying you shouldn't put me on trial for murder because killing an entire train load of rugby players "doesn't happen very often".

2) a politician running on a campaign promise to go after criminals isn't unusual at all, and there is nothing "political" about Trump being the target of her ire.

Those subpoenas are pretty solid.

- - - Updated - - -

This is ridiculous. If a lawyer ran for AG saying "elect me and I'll go after Charles Manson," nobody would argue that it means Charles Manson shouldn't go to jail for all the murder he inspired.

Precisely. Those attorneys on CNN just want their 15 minutes, and were doing the attorney thing for the devil's advocate of legal issues.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the same reason why when an AG has to get affirmed by the Senate, they always ask how the AG would react to specific cases, and they AG always has to stay impartial and say something like "I will follow the law and apply it fairly". They don't say "Oh yeah, bitches! I'm going to burn all my political opponents to the ground! Welcome to Riker's MFer's!"

It's literally NOT the same reason at all. You're talking about the Department of Justice Head versus a state elected official. It's not the AG's fault Trump is both a criminal and a politician. She only cares about the first part.

- - - Updated - - -

Those were Trumps own lawyers on CNN.

You're basically laundering Trump's legal defense as "some guys on CNN".

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nice fucking post @solinari6 - jesus slap-dancing-christ, talk about burying the lede.

[DarkTZeratul]

All I'm saying is the lawyer on CNN said...

Trump's lawyer. It was Trump's lawyer saying that. He just happened to be saying it on CNN.

[cubby]

All you’re saying is that Trump’s lawyers are throwing every pile of shit at the wall they can. Shocking.

Exactly. This was purely a propaganda visit by Trump's attorneys to muddy the waters. It's impressive CNN let them on at all.

[Endus]

All I'm saying is the lawyer on CNN said that if they can show the AG has a political axe to grind, the judge may have to consider that. Is that enough to throw out the subpoenas? Beats me.

The thing is, there's no "political axe".

The Trumps aren't going to be targeted by the AG because they were Republicans. They're going to be targeted because of all the criminal conduct they've allegedly engaged in.

This wasn't a declaration of bias, it was a declaration of a lack of bias; that political affiliations and power won't sway the AG's pursuit of justice.

Of course Trump's lawyers will try and spin this as literally anything else. They have to lie; the facts don't protect Trump or his family.

[Breccia]

It's impressive CNN let them on at all.

What better way to get sound clips of how desperate Team Trump is than to make them the star attraction?

[Edge-]

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/04/ted...tified-or-not/

And now Cruz, who is in the Senate and can't initiate impeachment proceedings, is saying the GOP will impeach Biden if they take back the House for...uh...because Democrats impeached Trump with cause. Twice.

Fuckin political arsonists, the lot of them. Empty hated, hate filled, lying, political arsonists who want to burn down democracy in favor of a fascist regime where all that matters is that they have power and control.

Before fleeing to Cancun during a statewide disaster, abandoning their dog in their freezing home (the "help" cared for it), and blaming his cowardly, spineless retreat to sunny Mexico on his teenage daughters.

[Breccia]

And now Cruz, who is in the Senate and can't initiate impeachment proceedings, is saying the GOP will impeach Biden if they take back the House for...uh...because Democrats impeached Trump with cause. Twice.

Good. Democrats can run on that GOP promise in 2022.

[solinari6]

Trump's lawyer. It was Trump's lawyer saying that. He just happened to be saying it on CNN.

Are you fucking kidding me?
Nice fucking post @solinari6 - jesus slap-dancing-christ, talk about burying the lede.

No, it was not Trump's lawyers. I'm not THAT stupid. It was Ellie something (kinda sexy guy with a nice jaw). He's a fairly straight shooter and he just said that Trumps claims MAY have some merit. The only reason I posted that was to prepare people for the worst, because god knows it happens often.

[Endus]

No, it was not Trump's lawyers. I'm not THAT stupid. It was Ellie something (kinda sexy guy with a nice jaw). He's a fairly straight shooter and he just said that Trumps claims MAY have some merit. The only reason I posted that was to prepare people for the worst, because god knows it happens often.

The thing is, there isn't "some possible merit". Literally no one has suggested misusing the justice system for political ends, except Republicans.

This is like if Matt Gaetz was publicly running an interstate brothel named "PedoTraffickers" that sold underage girls across state lines to pedorapists, but he wasn't being prosecuted because the AG was a Republican who refused to lay charges, and the new incoming AG said openly that they would be targeting and prosecuting Gaetz to the fullest extent of the law.

That's not because he's Republican. It's because he's a pedorapist who runs a service for other pedorapists. It's about the law-breaking, not politics.

Same deal with Trump and family. It's got nothing to do with politics, and anyone with an ounce of gray matter in their heads knows this. It's about prosecuting lawbreakers. Refusing to give the Trumps a pass because of their political might is the absence of bias or corruption, not a declaration of such.

This is just more of CNN's garbage "both sides of the issue" apologism.

[solinari6]

The thing is, there isn't "some possible merit". Literally no one has suggested misusing the justice system for political ends, except Republicans.

This is like if Matt Gaetz was publicly running an interstate brothel named "PedoTraffickers" that sold underage girls across state lines to pedorapists, but he wasn't being prosecuted because the AG was a Republican who refused to lay charges, and the new incoming AG said openly that they would be targeting and prosecuting Gaetz to the fullest extent of the law.

I think that Ellie's point is that for someone running for AG, they normally stick to things like "No one is above the law, and we will work tirelessly to convict ALL pedo's no matter their party or social status". Otherwise, it can bring up impartiality questions. Is that enough to sway a judge? probably not, but then it depends on the judge, doesn't it?

This sub seems to swing wildly between "Trump and his ilk will never see any time, because rich people always find a way to get out of this shit" and "OOH, subpoenas are flying! Trumps doing down for sure!" I'm much more pessimistic about this stuff, because I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than utterly disappointed.

[Edge-]

Otherwise, it can bring up impartiality questions.

But this remains a fairly empty strawman. Prior to 2018 when she ran, we'd already seen the Trump family and their businesses caught up in illegal behavior with a lot of serious questions about their broader interests and behaviors.

During her campaign, from what I can tell, her message was, "I will investigate", focusing on that she would, despite Trump being president, treat him like any other person and investigate accordingly within the state of NY. One could try to argue that's politically motivated, but one could more easily argue that her promise to investigate rather than prosecute was simply her clarifying that in the state of NY she didn't view anyone as "above the law".