Debate Now Did Trump Really Violate The Law?

[Road Runner]

Yeah there is definitely a crime. As much as I want Trump to be held accountable for any crime, if I’m being honest, this wouldn’t be the case I would have brought. I definitely think he did it… it’s just messy and to indict an ex president it needs to be clean, easy and clear.

The classified docs and election interference charges look much stronger. Too bad we won’t see them before the election.

I’m curious wifey…. What do you think about the Hunter Biden trial? 6 years of investigations and all they have is gun form and tax charges? That has to stink of politics as well, no?

Eh,.. I don't know much about the Hunter Biden thing and I don't give a hoot much one way or the other personally. As the thing that really ticks me off is not whether or not Trump did it or didn't do it (I just have my speculations that it's all bullshit) it's when Trump has to be punished for something when democrats in power are accused of doing exactly the same thing he did and nothing is ever done about it. Like the classified papers, why is Trump being held accountable for it and not Biden?



Biden is incompetent to be held trial but not to be president? Seriously, like have you ever heard the man speak? Just my two cents anyways.

 

[Moonglow]

Please don't take it personally. You know I love you as an online friend and big brother. I'm not ashamed to admit it either. Left or right, somebody who puts politics over friendship just makes me sad and depresses me. It's like why do we always have to agree to like each other? I like Pirates Of The Caribbean but one of my friends doesn't, does that mean that we should be stop being friends? I don't think so. If we did to me that would just be completely stupid and utterly pointless.





Okay NOW I do believe that I understand everything. So if Trump is truly guilty of it I see why it's a crime now. However, I still think that things aren't adding up here for the way that the trial took place so I'm still calling bias and bullshit but at least now I can see where the crime is if he's guilty of it.

Yer opinion don't matter the jury of his peers done did find him guilty.

 

[Moonglow]

Eh,.. I don't know much about the Hunter Biden thing and I don't give a hoot much one way or the other personally. As the thing that really ticks me off is not whether or not Trump did it or didn't do it (I just have my speculations that it's all bullshit) it's when Trump has to be punished for something when democrats in power are accused of doing exactly the same thing he did and nothing is ever done about it. Like the classified papers, why is Trump being held accountable for it and not Biden?



Biden is incompetent to be held trial but not to be president? Seriously, like have you ever heard the man speak? Just my two cents anyways.

Biden is president and is immune from prosecution. Duh

 

[Slade3200]

Like the classified papers, why is Trump being held accountable for it and not Biden?

Trumps legal troubles isn’t with him having the papers is his dishonesty and obstruction on efforts to get them back. Biden cooperated. Trump is accused of lying, hiding and obstructing.

Back to the hush money case. If a dem did the same thing I’d hope they get arrested too. Cohen was indicted and did jail time under Trumps DOJ for the crime Trump was indicted for, so the cases wasn’t exactly random.

 

[Slade3200]

Biden is incompetent to be held trial but not to be president? Seriously, like have you ever heard the man speak? Just my two cents anyways.

I can’t take either man seriously when I listen to either of them speak. Blows my mind that these two options are really the best we can do for President. I’ll probably vote third party or write in

 

[Road Runner]

Trumps legal troubles isn’t with him having the papers is his dishonesty and obstruction on efforts to get them back. Biden cooperated. Trump is accused of lying, hiding and obstructing.

Back to the hush money case. If a dem did the same thing I’d hope they get arrested too. Cohen was indicted and did jail time under Trumps DOJ for the crime Trump was indicted for, so the cases wasn’t exactly random.

Yeah if Trump did do the hush money thing then he deserves to go to prison in my mind now that I understand more about it however, it's just very strange to me that they chose to have it in a very blue state. I'm pretty sure prejudice was going on here.



As for Biden cooperating, I honestly don't remember that but I do remember them saying that they found him incompetent enough to stand trial. Anyways, this is what is good about debating with me, I'll actually admit when I'm wrong and believe it or not I actually like it when somebody proves me wrong as I find it to be a challenge, but I like having civil debates with mature people like you who can actually debate and answer questions without constantly deflecting and changing the subject and resorting to insults when you don't have anything. That's the only reason that I get uppity towards leftists on here as it annoys me to no end.

 

[Road Runner]

Also don't get me wrong as I love being right too obviously lol but lefties should answer the damn question and conservatives should learn to admit when they're wrong more. As you can't be right all the time now can you as that just makes you human.

 

[forkup]

Right by felony classifications: A, B, C, D, E Etc

I see. Meaning everything from no jail, to 4 years.

The difference being decided by a judge considering established mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Sounds fair to me.

So again. You're claiming this is unfair, and I'm allowing you to define "fair" in your own way. WHY IS IT NOT FAIR?

 

[forkup]

Yeah if Trump did do the hush money thing then he deserves to go to prison in my mind now that I understand more about it however, it's just very strange to me that they chose to have it in a very blue state. I'm pretty sure prejudice was going on here.



As for Biden cooperating, I honestly don't remember that but I do remember them saying that they found him incompetent enough to stand trial. Anyways, this is what is good about debating with me, I'll actually admit when I'm wrong and believe it or not I actually like it when somebody proves me wrong as I find it to be a challenge, but I like having civil debates with mature people like you who can actually debate and answer questions without constantly deflecting and changing the subject and resorting to insults when you don't have anything. That's the only reason that I get uppity towards leftists on here as it annoys me to no end.

It's actually refreshing, and to be honest baffling to see someone on the right actually debate. In the true sense of the word. I didn't think they existed on this board. I truly didn't. And like you, I like it when I'm proven wrong.

Allow me to respond to your first paragraph being brutally honest.

Just like you, I'm absolutely certain Bragg's prosecution had a political motivation. I just think it's quite irrelevant. Going into politics means that you make a conscious choice to go into an adversarial profession. A profession where people are invested in making you fail. And one where you know that everything you do will be scrutinized.

And in no case as extreme as running for president. If you can't hold up to that scrutiny then don't run. And don't ask for sympathy when you can't.

When Hillary got herself in trouble over her E-mails, I didn't think the investigation was unwarranted. Although I personally felt that all the hair pulling for having them in a technically unsecured but practically just as secure server as the government probably was not warranted. And I didn't doubt all of that posturing was political. Neither did I think Comey reopening that investigation a few days before the election (probably costing her the election) was unwarranted.

In my opinion she made a bad choice in an environment where those choices will be seized upon by the opposition. And any consequences of that choice where hers. (It was telling that when I asked at the time if anyone on the right was willing to accept the conclusions of that reopened investigation, nobody wanted to actually agree.)The same applies for Trump.

Trump wanted and wants to be President. He made the choice of breaking the law. It's completely irrelevant what Bragg's motivation for prosecution is. What matters is if he could convince a jury of 12 people that Trump broke the law beyond a reasonable doubt, under the same legal standard that applies to everyone. A standard that gives a defendant every possible advantage. Especially if he can afford competent legal representation.

Sorry this is a bit long. But I felt the point deserved elaboration.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rules:

1. Stay on topic. (This means no deflection in changing the subject. Even if you can't answer a question.)

2. No lying and saying that a poster said something that they didn't and take their words out of context.


That's pretty much all I can think of actually. So, anyways, how did Trump violate the law by having sex with a porn star? Also, how does this even have anything to do with falsifying business records?

No Trump didn't commit a crime

 

[forkup]

Also don't get me wrong as I love being right too obviously lol but lefties should answer the damn question and conservatives should learn to admit when they're wrong more. As you can't be right all the time now can you as that just makes you human.

We think it's fun to talk to complete strangers on the internet. That kind of defines someone who " wants to be right", as long as it doesn't exclude the possibility of being proven wrong it's an admirable thing. In fact being opinionated without being close-minded is something to be proud of.

For myself, you can ask me anything. I will answer honestly and without evasion. Even if that means I need to concede something.

 

[SweetSue92]

I see. Meaning everything from no jail, to 4 years.

The difference being decided by a judge considering established mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Sounds fair to me.

So again. You're claiming this is unfair, and I'm allowing you to define "fair" in your own way. WHY IS IT NOT FAIR?

Because the FEC wouldn't touch what is supposedly a federal election crime

Because the judge allowed the jury to "choose their adventure" crime

Because Bragg had to concoct a felony from misdemeanors that were expired

But hey, talk to the wall. MI is already seeing the backfire

 

[forkup]

Because the FEC wouldn't touch what is supposedly a federal election crime

Because the judge allowed the jury to "choose their adventure" crime

Because Bragg had to concoct a felony from misdemeanors that were expired

But hey, talk to the wall. MI is already seeing the backfire

And around and around it goes.

Cohen WAS jailed for it. Trump was NAMED even in the indictment.

The judge applied existing laws.

The indictment fell within the statute of limitations considering the hold on trials because of COVID and the established policy of not indicting a sitting president, both argued in pretrial motions.


You are simply trying to INVENT a rational why your orange God should get special treatment.

 

[SweetSue92]

And around and around it goes.

Cohen WAS jailed for it. Trump was NAMED even in the indictment.

The judge applied existing laws.

The indictment fell within the statute of limitations considering the hold on trials because of COVID and the established policy of not indicting a sitting president, both argued in pretrial motions.


You are simply trying to INVENT a rational why your orange God should get special treatment.

Cohen STOLE MONEY

Trump hurt your feelings

 

[forkup]

Cohen STOLE MONEY

Trump hurt your feelings

Nope. He scares me. Or more to the point. A cult leader at the head of a major political party, actively trying to destroy all Democratic institutions scares me.

But since you're a part of that cult, I see why you're applauding and polishing turds for this megalomaniac.

 

[Road Runner]

It's actually refreshing, and to be honest baffling to see someone on the right actually debate. In the true sense of the word. I didn't think they existed on this board. I truly didn't. And like you, I like it when I'm proven wrong.

Allow me to respond to your first paragraph being brutally honest.

Just like you, I'm absolutely certain Bragg's prosecution had a political motivation. I just think it's quite irrelevant. Going into politics means that you make a conscious choice to go into an adversarial profession. A profession where people are invested in making you fail. And one where you know that everything you do will be scrutinized.

And in no case as extreme as running for president. If you can't hold up to that scrutiny then don't run. And don't ask for sympathy when you can't.

When Hillary got herself in trouble over her E-mails, I didn't think the investigation was unwarranted. Although I personally felt that all the hair pulling for having them in a technically unsecured but practically just as secure server as the government probably was not warranted. And I didn't doubt all of that posturing was political. Neither did I think Comey reopening that investigation a few days before the election (probably costing her the election) was unwarranted.

In my opinion she made a bad choice in an environment where those choices will be seized upon by the opposition. And any consequences of that choice where hers. (It was telling that when I asked at the time if anyone on the right was willing to accept the conclusions of that reopened investigation, nobody wanted to actually agree.)The same applies for Trump.

Trump wanted and wants to be President. He made the choice of breaking the law. It's completely irrelevant what Bragg's motivation for prosecution is. What matters is if he could convince a jury of 12 people that Trump broke the law beyond a reasonable doubt, under the same legal standard that applies to everyone. A standard that gives a defendant every possible advantage. Especially if he can afford competent legal representation.

Sorry this is a bit long. But I felt the point deserved elaboration.

Well maybe if you had actually gotten a chance to get to know me without jumping to conclusions that I can actually think for myself you know and I'm actually a really nice person and I can admit when I'm wrong and make mistakes, but I do believe that you're one of those people who automatically think Trump supporter = bad.



I definitely don't do that with liberals as I judge them on an individual basis. Anyways, I think that you sound like somebody that I could possibly get along with even if we disagree but with all due respect you're missing the point. As being biased about a political opponent (which at least you're honest) is wrong and I think even illegal so how do we know that it's a fair judgement?

We think it's fun to talk to complete strangers on the internet. That kind of defines someone who " wants to be right", as long as it doesn't exclude the possibility of being proven wrong it's an admirable thing. In fact bo eing opinionated without being close-minded is something to be proud of.

For myself, you can ask me anything. I will answer honestly and without evasion. Even if that means I need to concede something.

Yep, definitely not closed minded for as I said before I welcome the challenge. I hope that you are who you claim to be.

 

[forkup]

Well maybe if you had actually gotten a chance to get to know me without jumping to conclusions that I can actually think for myself you know and I'm actually a really nice person and I can admit when I'm wrong and make mistakes, but I do believe that you're one of those people who automatically think Trump supporter = bad.

Then you think wrong. A political affiliation doesn't make somebody bad to me. I have plenty of family who are MAGA. I get along with them perfectly fine. Exception being one of my brother's in-law. That's a function of him being a dick, not so much a Trump supporter.

As for me jumping to conclusions. It's a conclusion I reached by spending years on this board. Constantly trying to meaningfully engage with people. Only to run into the same buzzsaw of evasion that you do.

I definitely don't do that with liberals as I judge them on an individual basis. Anyways, I think that you sound like somebody that I could possibly get along with even if we disagree but with all due respect you're missing the point. As being biased about a political opponent (which at least you're honest) is wrong and I think even illegal so how do we know that it's a fair judgement?

Sure you do. You did so in the previous paragraph about me. Not that I blame you. But everyone has certain biases about other people. Some are correct, some aren't. What's important is that you're able to actually change your mind when necessary.

As to your opinion on judicial biases and the associated problems. Maybe if I take politics out of it completely you will understand what I mean.

A prosecutor is NOT an unbiased person. In fact, his function in a court is to assess if a prosecution is warranted, and if he does prosecute. He starts from the proposition that he's prosecuting someone who's guilty, and tries to prove it. I don't think you believe that a prosecutor has no opinion when he's prosecuting a child molester for instance. That bias ONLY is a problem when it causes him to not follow due process.

To see to it that a judgement is "fair", a defendant has all kinds of structural advantages. Right to an attorney, the appeals process, the right to not have to incriminate yourself, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict of 12 people to determine guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many more.

Yep, definitely not closed minded for as I said before I welcome the challenge. I hope that you are who you claim to be.

You are welcome to look up my posts in the search bar. I'm not saying I'm always nice, or correct, what I do think you will find is that I'm honest.

 

[Road Runner]

Then you think wrong. A political affiliation doesn't make somebody bad to me. I have plenty of family who are MAGA. I get along with them perfectly fine. Exception being one of my brother's in-law. That's a function of him being a dick, not so much a Trump supporter.

As for me jumping to conclusions. It's a conclusion I reached by spending years on this board. Constantly trying to meaningfully engage with people. Only to run into the same buzzsaw of evasion that you do.

Sure you do. You did so in the previous paragraph about me. Not that I blame you. But everyone has certain biases about other people. Some are correct, some aren't. What's important is that you're able to actually change your mind when necessary.

As to your opinion on judicial biases and the associated problems. Maybe if I take politics out of it completely you will understand what I mean.

A prosecutor is NOT an unbiased person. In fact, his function in a court is to assess if a prosecution is warranted, and if he does prosecute. He starts from the proposition that he's prosecuting someone who's guilty, and tries to prove it. I don't think you believe that a prosecutor has no opinion when he's prosecuting a child molester for instance. That bias ONLY is a problem when it causes him to not follow due process.

To see to it that a judgement is "fair", a defendant has all kinds of structural advantages. Right to an attorney, the appeals process, the right to not have to incriminate yourself, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict of 12 people to determine guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many more.

First of all no I don't judge anybody automatically as I usually go by first impressions so I don't think that you have the right to tell me what I do and don't do when I know myself more than you know me.


Second of all you're still missing the point. It's not about what political party you support, it's whether or not you let it get in the way of making legal judgements.

 

[forkup]

First of all no I don't judge anybody automatically as I usually go by first impressions so I don't think that you have the right to tell me what I do and don't do when I know myself more than you know me.

You changed my wording from jumping to conclusions to "automatically",

Well maybe if you had actually gotten a chance to get to know me without jumping to conclusions that I can actually think for myself you know and I'm actually a really nice person and I can admit when I'm wrong and make mistakes, but I do believe that you're one of those people who automatically think Trump supporter = bad.

That is a strawman. It's also something I don't think you should be defensive about. The proposition that you, me or... anybody is capable of judging somebody without prejudice, especially political is simply nonsense.

Second of all you're still missing the point. It's not about what political party you support, it's whether or not you let it get in the way of making legal judgements.

No, I'm not missing that point. In fact, I made that point in general about ANY prosecution.

A prosecutor is NOT an unbiased person. In fact, his function in a court is to assess if a prosecution is warranted, and if he does prosecute. He starts from the proposition that he's prosecuting someone who's guilty, and tries to prove it. I don't think you believe that a prosecutor has no opinion when he's prosecuting a child molester for instance. That bias ONLY is a problem when it causes him to not follow due process.

You are claiming a possible political motivation is disqualifying for a federal prosecutor because "we can't know if the judgement is fair." But if I push back on the premise, you claim you believe political affiliation isn't important, just that it doesn't get in the way of "making legal judgements."

You can make one argument. Not both.

 

[Road Runner]

You changed my wording from jumping to conclusions to "automatically",

That is a strawman. It's also something I don't think you should be defensive about. The proposition that you, me or... anybody is capable of judging somebody without prejudice, especially political is simply nonsense.


No, I'm not missing that point. In fact, I made that point in general about ANY prosecution.

You are claiming a possible political motivation is disqualifying for a federal prosecutor because "we can't know if the judgement is fair." But if I push back on the premise, you claim you believe political affiliation isn't important, just that it doesn't get in the way of "making legal judgements."

You can make one argument. Not both.

I tried with you but I give up. You just don't listen that's the problem.