Nor should being elected be allowed to stop or postpone any cases.They should continue independently of the accused appointing people to stop the trials.There are lots of guilty men. The choice on who you prosecute should not be colored by party affiliation of the person nor their potential for higher office.
The NY case, was clearly brought with that in mind.
We don't know how the State Supreme Court or SCOTUS will rule on such a case.
Again, you are speculating.
It's a tough argument to make at the Federal level..We already have a system for prosecuting the sitting President at the Federal level. The Impeachment Procedure. And the DOJ has a standing principle not to prosecute sitting Presidents. It's just bad governance.Nor should being elected be allowed to stop or postpone any cases.They should continue independently of the accused appointing people to stop the trials.
If other countries leaders did that they would rightly be criticised.
Tbh if I was a us citizen I'd be more bothered about what biden is up to between now and Jan 25 than what trump did in the past. A lesson the democrats should have learned from the last few years and the election result is that by going after trump this way they feed the notion of him as a martyr/victim fighting the system/deep state and play into his hands.It's a tough argument to make at the Federal level..We already have a system for prosecuting the sitting President at the Federal level. The Impeachment Procedure. And the DOJ has a standing principle not to prosecute sitting Presidents. It's just bad governance.
I will agree with you that the State prosecution can and ought to continue. And if guilt is found you can delay sentencing till after the Presidency is over. It's only 4 years, Not to mention the case may take almost as long to reach final conclusions anyway.
Even the Hush money case will be appealed has sentencing concluded. So best it be delayed.
But it's obvious to most that the cases were brought specifically to stop his run for office once it became obvious he'd run again.
Generally speaking, ex Presidents are just left alone even if you have potential cases you could have brought post presidency against them.
It's probably part of the reason Clinton walks around a free man today. There is a natural hesitancy to prosecute an ex President.
Anyone with common sense can see that a business filing misdemeanor, upgraded to Felony for 2016 offenses, doesn't rise up to the level of a case any overworked DA with a crime filled City will ever consider bringing against an ex-President.
If he was running a sex-slave ring or child porn ring or accused presently of rape, murder etc. one can understand.
But a business filling misdemeanor and a property evaluation falsification claim? Yeah, that doesn't pass the sniff test. I smell whiffs of Banana Republic.
It wa clearly brought, because it was politically advantageous to do so.
You are correct about what should happen, but there’s absolutely no chance he’s going to see justice. None.Nor should being elected be allowed to stop or postpone any cases.They should continue independently of the accused appointing people to stop the trials.
If other countries leaders did that they would rightly be criticised.
Yes, it's deeply worrying what Biden and his lane duck admin is currently doing vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine and the border/immigration issue . It feels like they are purposely trying to create horrible conditions before the transition in 2 months.Tbh if I was a us citizen I'd be more bothered about what biden is up to between now and Jan 25 than what trump did in the past. A lesson the democrats should have learned from the last few years and the election result is that by going after trump this way they feed the notion of him as a martyr/victim fighting the system/deep state and play into his hands.
Dont you think its important for someone running to be President to be of moral character and upstanding? You would think if a candidate running for the highest office in the land has committed crimes, they should be investigated and if guilty, punished. He/She have all the crimes laid bare and prosecuted before election. Its even more important to have these people investigated than any one else.There are a million cases that can be brought on most people based on interesting theories. Some of which might even be legitimate and winnable. Yet it doesn't mean they'll be brought.
So when I say the point was to stop him from running, I'm not arguing that none of the cases are colorable under the law. Rather, what I'm saying is had Trump decided in 2021 that he'd like to Throw his support behind Nikki Haley and not run... Almost none of the cases would have been brought.
The second part was about the Zappa guy.. He is anti-American.
But they’re all the same apparently.Dont you think its important for someone running to be President to be of moral character and upstanding? You would think if a candidate running for the highest office in the land has committed crimes, they should be investigated and if guilty, punished. He/She have all the crimes laid bare and prosecuted before election. Its even more important to have these people investigated than any one else.
Theoretically, yes. Id prefer someone of high moral character. Everyone would. But we are not always lucky enough to always have such options. More importantly, most prefer to just have someone seemingly capable of doing the Job well.Dont you think its important for someone running to be President to be of moral character and upstanding?
Perhaps. But when should we start such scrutiny? In 2024?You would think if a candidate running for the highest office in the land has committed crimes, they should be investigated and if guilty, punished. He/She have all the crimes laid bare and prosecuted before election. Its even more important to have these people investigated than any one else.
This is where you are completely wrong. The judges have been put there precisely for this purpose.There are lots of guilty men. The choice on who you prosecute should not be colored by party affiliation of the person nor their potential for higher office.
The NY case, was clearly brought with that in mind.
We don't know how the State Supreme Court or SCOTUS will rule on such a case.
Again, you are speculating.
I honestly don’t know why you bother.This is where you are completely wrong. The judges have been put there precisely for this purpose.
The SCOTUS judges all lied at their confirmation hearing. “Roe v Wade is completely safe in my hands.” They have subsequently ruled for Trump in the immunity case by subverting the constitution. They have demonstrated complete willingness to ignore the law. Why would they ever not rule in his favour again? They have created a precedent.
At the lower level we have seen his pet judge in Florida go against well established precedent (which she did not have the power to do) and rule that special counsels were not lawful.
During the next two years Trump will appoint scores of federal judges to do exactly the same. There is no chance whatsoever that they will not rule in his favour. They are hand picked for the purpose. Every lawyer in the US knows that the courts are powerless to rein him in. Fuck, his counsel argued before SCOTUS that the president could lawfully order the death of a political rival, and SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIM.
I am not speculating, it is a certainty as J Michael Luttig, an arch conservative has said.
The precedents have now been established and the rule of law is dead. Your earlier statement that Trump did not wield unlimited power was well wide of the mark. All cases revolving around him will be decided in his favour, the little nicety of deciding what the limit of his core powers is will not be necessary.